Knebworth

The plan is to remove vast tracts of green belt. Knebworth bears the brunt and will change the village beyond recognition. A 31% increase in homes is punitive; no other village is subject to this degree of development

Whilst I understand the need for additional housing stock across the UK and I'm not a NIMBY I do not believe the plan for additional housing in Knebworth has been properly considered. Points I would make are
Knebworth is built around one North/South Road the B197 London Rd (encompassing the Village High Street) with a number of East /West roads cutting across it. These are Deards End Lane, Station Road, Gun Road, Oakfields Avenue , Watton Road and Swangleys Lane.
All of the proposed sites (K1-K4) sit at the ends of these East/West roads. Relevant points are:
Station Road and Gun Rd both pass under railway bridges with the road narrowing and allowing only one car to pass safely at a time. Pedestrian access is via a narrow pavement on one side only which allows single file walking at best. Larger vehicles often mount the kerb when passing under the bridges. Deards End Lane goes over the railway but a slight slope and a sharp left hand bend in the road pretty much make this a blind spot. Again the pavement is narrow. The significant extra traffic arising from the new homes when built and particularly during the construction phase will significantly increase congestion and impact on safety
With the exception of Station Rd all the East/West roads are narrow allowing for a single narrow lane in each direction. All of them have cars parked on one side pretty much all the time which means you are regularly having to find space to pull into to make progress and not hit the cars coming towards you!
This situation will be considerably worsened and make life worse for current residents by the impact of the significant numbers of additional cars generated by the proposed additional 671 homes (easy to imagine a figure close to 1000).
The narrowness of these Roads, which are the only access routes to the planned development sites (K1-K4) means they are also inappropriate for use by the undoubtedly heavy volume and large sizes of construction traffic. As we see with occasional delivery lorries and a farm tractor, these construction vehicles will have to put two wheels onto the pavement/verge with consequent impact on pedestrian safety

The Plan makes comment that the Village High Street is only a pinch point when traffic is disrupted on the A1M. I believe they are being disingenuous here. I'm not sure when they did their modelling and what they consider acceptable levels of delay but they clearly didn't attend during rush hour (presumably they were on their way home!)
Knebworth High St which is not wide always has cars parked on both sides of the road as the provision of such parking is important to the continued viability of the shops (as recognised in the Plan). Even when traffic flows through the village it is rare that you are not in a short queue as the narrowness of the road means that people drive through at very low speeds as they're nervous of scraping against traffic coming the other way. If there is a bus, lorry, large van, 4 wheel drive or just a nervous driver it is impossible for traffic to flow two ways at the same time - again causing longer queues . It is in fact rare that there aren't cars queueing to get through
At rush hour, as you would expect the situation is considerably worse. The same issues are there as during the day but obviously exacerbated by the considerably increased numbers of cars on the roads. The tailbacks each night run to hundreds of yards meaning there are many stationary cars with engines running pumping out exhaust fumes.
Another issue which aggravates the situation is that a Tesco store about 3/4 mile north of the village has traffic lights controlling access to the site. Since those lights were installed North bound traffic has slowed considerably with traffic tailing back into the village. Hence traffic can't get quickly through the village and nor can it quickly leave.
The situation as currently exists therefore is already far from ideal for Knebworth residents
The Plan therefore will have a significant adverse effect on residents because:
1)Sight KB3 is within the confines of the Village High Street and only has access onto the High Street. Traffic entering and leaving that site will have a detrimental impact on traffic flow - particularly where they will have to try and turn across the line of traffic. I'm also concerned at the possibility of traffic accidents at this site.
2) I don't have the reference but there is a further planned development just outside the village on land owned by Odyssey Health Club - I believe for approx 80 new homes. Access to this site will require a new roundabout to be built on the B197 about half a mile north of Knebworth. This will inevitably slow traffic still further and lead to longer and slower tailbacks into Knebworth
3)Additional traffic generated by the proposed developments. No new employment proposals are included in the plan so a possible additional 1000 cars (assumed c1.5 cars per new home) will be exiting and coming back into Knebworth each day

Other points I'd make are where the Plan makes no, or insufficient provision.

Car Parking - already a serious issue as parking near Village High street or close to the Station are very difficult. The Local Authority have held a number of studies to see how to improve the situation but have found no solution
Employment - there is no provision or discussion about how all these new people are to be employed. Presumably therefore they will all have to leave Knebworth to work elsewhere. This will give the Village a 'Commuter Town' feel and work against the retention of the strong sense of community and identity that currently exists amongst residents
Doctors Surgery - whilst the Plan mentions that there is a planning request for a new Doctors surgery combined with a library this is merely because the existing surgery site has to be vacated and they need to move somewhere else within the village. There is no proposal for additional resource which is already insufficient for existing numbers let alone meeting the demand from the residents of the new homes. As an example I today (25th November) booked the first available appointment with the Knebworth Surgery and the earliest I could get to see a doctor was 6th December
Dentist - there are two dentists in the village but neither have any capacity to take additional NHS patients. Again no increase is included in the Plan
School -current village primary school is full at every intake. It is on a small site so has no room to expand. The Plan does include provision for a new Primary School with single class intake. This would be enough for 30 pupils per year with a max total of say 210. This additional capacity when judged against the proposed 671 new homes is insufficient
Police - whilst Knebworth is not a high crime area, I have not seen a police presence in the village for months - all I get is an e-mail warning me about latest crime trends. Current resource looks insufficient to provide a regular presence and again there is no proposal for additional cover
Knebworth Station - platforms are long and narrow and already prone to overcrowding. Potential additional numbers using the station will have to be carefully managed to avoid accidents. Again the Plan is silent
Green Belt - three of the sites are on Green Belt Land and are a threat to the openness of the landscape which surrounds the village
Highways - per comments above existing roads not sufficient to carry additional traffic volumes
Numbers - this is a 31% increase on existing housing volumes. Knebworth is a village with facilities to match not a small town

Overall
Is the Plan positive in recognising infrastructure constraints. NO
Does the Plan bring ongoing real benefits to Knebworth. NO
Does it deliver a sustainable solution. NO
Is the Plan as regards Knebworth justified and fair. NO

1. There is no strategy meaning this plan is unlikely to be effective. This plan is not a co-ordinated development and there are no overall infrastructure delivery plans. This will likely result in the piecemeal development of Knebworth with no single developer responsible for delivering the necessary infrastructure to support these plans (e.g., roads, schools, drainage, doctors). A co-ordinated plan is required to deliver a plan for the village as a whole and not four independent sections.
2. This plan identifies four local housing allocations within Knebworth for an estimated 598 new homes and further 65 homes have already been built or granted planning permission. This is a 31% increase in the size of Knebworth. 150 homes being built at Woolmer Green and also ~70 on the Oddessy site have not been taken into account in these numbers. Overall this is huge number of house for one area, and are not justified when the Stevenage west land is reserved and not being developed in this plan (3,100 homes). Why does this plan not propose developing this area? This could considerably reduce the scale of development of the villages surrounding Stevenage in NH.
3. The plan does include a new primary school but the proposals are not specific and need to be more detailed about what will actually be provided. Knebworth does not currently have a secondary school, with children having to travel to Stevenage, Hitchin or further for secondary schooling. The plan does not explain how it will actually support increased secondary education requirement needs associated with an increase in population. One solution would be to include a new secondary school in the plan specifically rather than vague non-committal statements (e.g., KB4 / Up to 4ha of land for education purposes subject to up-to-date assessments of need).
4. The green belt surrounding Knebworth makes a significant contribution to protecting the space between the village and the surrounding villages and Stevenage. Removing it will likely mean there is a considerable danger of coalescence, destroying the identity of Knebworth.
5. Already the B197 is a very busy road and traffic often queues right back from Stevenage to Knebworth in rush hour, taking up to 30 mins to drive. I live on Watton Road in Knebworth and this road is also solid in rush hour. The plan does not include infrastructure development plans in an around Knebworth to address managing the increased burden of traffic associated with increased housing.
6. This plan has no considerations for the local economy with no proposals that support job creation in the village. At the moment Chas Low, the builder's merchants, on the KB3 site has a positive impact on the local economy - once this relocates this will be lost. The KB3 site should include retail/office premises - currently it is all housing.
7. Three proposed areas for development (KB2, KB3 and KB4) have long-standing drainage issues which the plan does not address in detail. The 31% increase in the size of Knebworth will also place a huge burden on Rye Meads Sewage Treatment works. The capacity of Rye Meads Sewage Treatment works will need to be increased - the current plan only supports part of the development, not all.
8. '13.200 A planning application has recently been submitted for a new library, doctors surgery and pharmacy on the site of the current library within the identified village centre' These are not new services, it is to replace the current ones. The plan is misleading here. Furthermore, these services are already stretched and the plan does not take into account the expansion of these services needed to support a 31% population increase.
9. The plan will have a negative impact on the surrounding countryside and damages two conservations areas in the Knebworth.

See attachment

The plan for Knebworth is not effective because each site is being considered separately rather than as a whole. The result is that insufficient thought has gone into the appropriate infrastructure required to support the considerable increase in the number of houses in Knebworth.
At peak times, Knebworth station is already heavily used with insufficient parking facilities. With the large number of additional houses planned, plus the 150 planned for Woolmer Green and the windfall site at Odyssey Leisure, commuters will find trains increasingly crowded and parking almost impossible. The occupants of the proposed new housing will not be aware of the degradation of facilities in Knebworth.
A 31% increase in the number of dwellings is not justified when land to the west of Stevenage is already reserved for 3,100 homes.
The loss of Green Belt around Knebworth is totally contrary to Government policy and will lead to coalescence between Knebworth and its neighbours. The village will lose its identity. There would also be a loss of productive agricultural land.
The B197 is already very congested through the village due to traffic using it as an alternative to the A1(M). The additional housing will create more traffic on narrow side roads and bridges unsuitable for heavy traffic with the potential for an increase in the number of accidents.
The loss of a major employer, if site KB3 is developed for housing, will reduce employment opportunities and business development and would be a backward step for the local economy.

IMBALANCE - the proposed amount of housing is disproportionate compared to proposed plans for other villages. If this reflects the potential higher sale prices for houses in Knebworth near the station, then that is not likely to provide affordable housing and is a duplicitous argument.
ROAD access - perhaps the most intractable issue is the bridges under the main railway line. One is already has a protection order and should not be used by lorries. The other two are narrow, there is a height restriction displayed on one already; the approach roads prevent a clear view through the bridge from either side (except for the east-west access to the south bridge). The pavements are inadequate for pedestrians - e.g. for two people walking towards each other, one has to step into the (narrow) roadway. Access for construction traffic would presumably be very difficult; and, post construction, several hundred additional cars would have a significantly detrimental effect on the safety of those pinch points.
It seems that proposed developments almost deliberately choose sites that have poor road infrastructure where other sites around the area are much better served.
LOCAL Lanes - the B197 (London/Stevenage north/south) road is the widest in the village and yet still not adequate - cf. impact on local businesses in the High Street for example. The roads to the east (Watton Road, Swangleys Lane) are narrow with several significant bends. Swangleys Lane also includes access to Knebworth School which is inadequate (and potentially dangerous) even now and surrounded by houses (thus restricting improvements).
COMMUTER land - already parking is a major issue. Although the proposed houses would be technically within the village, it is likely to generate more cars trying to park near the station in addition to those coming from nearby villages (especially Codicote and Woolmer Green).
INFRASTRUCTURE - the most alarming aspect of the proposals is that there is no plan (indeed apparently no need to plan) for the impact on the infrastructure of the area. In addition to the points mentioned, the capacity issues at Rye Meads Works are extremely concerning.
DOCTOR'S SURGERY - although only in planning as yet, there is a urgent need to improve the provision of space and facilities for the local surgery. Presumably this is being planned on the basis of the present population. A 30+% increase would render that facility immediately inadequate if the housing proposals for Knebworth were to be implemented.

Overall strategy:
The overall strategy is not clear. In fact, there is not an overall strategy and as such means that the plan is not effective. The fact that there is no strategy is apparent in the lack of connections between housing, cumulative development and infrastructure needed to support growth sustainably.
Amount of housing:
The amount of new housing (663 dwellings) would increase the village size by 31%. This is an increase of approximately 200 homes in this Plan to 2 years ago. None of the issues highlighted then have been addressed, so how can the village now support and additional 200 homes to 2 years ago? Please note Knebworth is a village, even though it is referred to as a town in the Plan.
Plan for over 500 homes should have a specific plan with developer obligations. Because of the separate sites, this obligation has been overlooked at bets, or deliberately manipulated at worse (by calling each site separate in its own right, rather than all part of the Knebworth site). There is no provision for jobs creation in the Plan as a whole and therefore no consideration for the local economy.
Planning has been granted for the Odyssey site to the north of Knebworth for approx. 70-100 homes. This hasn't been taken into account when determining amount of housing for Knebworth. These houses are being termed 'windfall gains'. A clear strategy should take these into account.
Furthermore, Stevenage West land has already been reserved for 3,100 homes. This would be better able to provide facilities and services.
There is no joined up thinking with adjacent parishes. Plans for Woolmer Green of 150 homes (to the north of Woolmer Green) have not been taken into account. If all the proposals go ahead then Knebworth and Woolmer Green will merge and Stevenage and Knebworth would be practically joined up. The town and villages will all merge into one.
The site KB4 has not previously undergone any consultation. This is against policy and verging on illegal.
Chas Lowe site: Again, as there is no proposal for any commercial use it is evidence of a lack of strategy for Knebworth. The village centre will be changed and this will have an impact. The facilities of Knebworth are designated as a village centre in the retail hierarchy under policy SP4. Therefore, any development of the village centre needs to take this into account. At a bare minimum, some mixed use should be proposed.
Green Belt:
Green Belt land makes a significant contribution to protecting spaces between towns and maintaining the separate identity of Knebworth as a village. Development of sites KB1 and KB2 will remove the Green Belt buffer between the village and the A1. There will be a loss of countryside and the open landscape setting.
Drainage issues:
Drainage issues have been raised time and time again. There will be a major capacity issue at Rye Meads Sewage Treatment Works and this has not been addressed. Surface water is already a problem; this will be exacerbated with increased population and households.

Transport:
It was raised in the previous consultation in 2014 that the existence of the railway line poses huge challenges regarding transport / traffic through the village. These challenges have not been addressed in this plan; in fact, the Plan says (13.195) that there are no mitigation requirements regarding transport. In fact, the Highways Agency has raised this issue previously. The problem with the bridges has been ignored. The two railway bridges at either end of the village are already dangerous due to the current volume of traffic, narrow roads, corners, and narrow pavements. An increase in volume of traffic and pedestrians will make this increasingly dangerous. There have already been many near misses. These two routes are used extensively by small children going to and from school, in the morning rush hour. An increase of 31% of this scale can only add to the problems.
The high street is also a known pinch point; it current takes over 35 minutes to reach junction 6 of the A1 in rush hour, which is only 2 miles away. Increased traffic will only exacerbate this).
Deard's End Lane is already dangerous, and it can't be widened. It is unsuitable for heavy traffic and increased traffic will make it more dangerous and over crowded.
In the Plan (13.192) it states that much of the traffic in the mornings is caused by secondary school pupils going to school in the car. This is simply not true. Virtually ALL secondary school pupils use the trains (to Hitchin and Hatfield) and the school provided buses (to Stevenage, Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield, Hertford, Ware), and public buses. Therefore, the idea that possible secondary school provision could ease the traffic volume is simply inaccurate.
Regarding site KB4, there is an obvious lack of capacity on Watton Road and Swangley's Lane.

Schools:
Primary:
* A second primary school on site KB2 is not well considered. This would be adjacent to the A1 and as such noise and air pollution will be significant. Children and teachers cannot learn and teach in this environment. In December 2014 the Environmental Audit Committee issued a report stating that: 'A ban on building schools, hospitals, and care homes near air pollution hotspots must be introduced to help cut thousands of deaths connected to the 'invisible killer' of traffic fumes.'
* A second primary school will change the village feel of Knebworth to more of a town, or urban sprawl. It will increase pressure on the roads under on the railway bridges because more people would be crossing the village each morning, in both directions, with young children. I would be naïve to assume that parents would automatically chose the primary school nearest to them, or on their side of the village
* Finally, regarding a new primary school, it will create a 'divide' in the village. One school will be 'better' than the other, and therefore a social dividend will emerge. This would not be healthy for the community feel of Knebworth.
Secondary:
In the Plan (13.192) it states that much of the traffic in the mornings is caused by secondary school pupils going to school in the car. This is simply not true. Virtually ALL secondary school pupils use the trains (to Hitchin and Hatfield) and the school provided buses (to Stevenage, Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield, Hertford, Ware), and public buses. Therefore, the idea that possible secondary school provision could ease the traffic volume is simply inaccurate.
13.193 mentions an 'all-through' school. It uses the term 'possibly' and 'provides the opportunity to look at alternative approaches' .This is certainly nothing definitive. It does not seem likely that a secondary school would be built; in fact there is not actually a shortage of secondary school places in Stevenage and so there would be no reason to provide a secondary school.

Other facilities (doctor's, library, pharmacy):
The Plan states that the planning permission has already been granted for a new doctor's surgery and library. This is true, but this is to REPLACE the current doctor's surgery and library; this did not take into account additional population. Therefore, the services provided will not meet the requirements of a village increased by 31% (number of homes).

Development of sites KB1, KB2 and KB4 around Knebworth directly contradicts North Herts Green Belt Review 2016. This strategic review of Green Belt in North Herts identified these areas as most significant in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; significant in preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another, and significant in their overall contribution to Green Belt purposes.
Knebworth is unique in North Herts as it borders on Stevenage Borough, East Herts District and Welwyn Hatfield Borough. It is incumbent upon North Herts Council to reject development in this area.

This plan is completely lacking in coherent strategy, and is not positively prepared. The plan fails to connect housing growth to infrastructure development to support sustainable growth. This plan for a 31% increase in dwellings in Knebworth will cause significant transportation issues, coalescence with adjacent settlements and the only infrastructure investment is for a Primary school located next to a motorway!

The original draft of this proposal included approximately 200 fewer homes and met with strong local opposition and legitimate concerns. There is no evidence of any of these concerns (particularly with regards to transport) being addressed in the latest draft, which then added the new sites at KB4 to the east of Knebworth. There has been no local consultation on the site at KB4 which I understand is contrary to national guidance.

The plan is not positively prepared because it circumvents planning policy that developments >500 homes should have their own specific plan. Adjacent sites at KB1 and KB2 are effectively the same development.

The only infrastructure mandated development mandated in this proposal is for an additional Primary School, close to the A1M. This would be adjacent to the A1 and as such noise and air pollution will be significant. In December 2014 the Environmental Audit Committee issued a report stating that: ' A ban on building schools, hospitals, and care homes near air pollution hotspots must be introduced to help cut thousands of deaths connected to the 'invisible killer' of traffic fumes.'

The housing in Knebworth is not justified because it makes no consideration of Planning granted for the Odyssey site to the north of Knebworth for approx. 70-100 homes. A clear strategy should take these into account, instead of terming these 'windfall' gains.

The plan is not justified because Stevenage West land has already been reserved for 3,100 homes. This would be better able to provide facilities and services.

The plan is not effective because there is no joined up thinking with adjacent parishes. Plans for Woolmer Green of 150 homes (to the north of Woolmer Green) have not been taken into account. If all the proposals go ahead then Knebworth and Woolmer Green will merge and Stevenage and Knebworth would be practically joined up. The town and villages will all merge into one. Significant risk of coalescence

Chas Lowe site: This proposal contradicts the retail policy for Knebworth that states development of commercial property should be for mixed used, residential and commercial. The village centre will be changed and this will have an impact. The facilities of Knebworth are designated as a village centre in the retail hierarchy under policy SP4. Therefore, any development of the village centre needs to take this into account

Green Belt:
Green Belt land makes a significant contribution to protecting spaces between towns and maintaining the separate identity of Knebworth as a village. Development of sites KB1 and KB2 will remove the Green Belt buffer between the village and the A1. There will be a loss of countryside and the open landscape setting.
Drainage issues:
Drainage issues have been raised time and time again. There will be a major capacity issue at Rye Meads Sewage Treatment Works and this has not been addressed. Surface water is already a problem; this will be exacerbated with increased population and households.

Transport:
It was raised in the previous consultation in 2014 that the existence of the railway line poses huge challenges regarding transport / traffic through the village. These challenges have not been addressed in this plan; in fact, the Plan says (13.195) that there are no mitigation requirements regarding transport. In fact, the Highways Agency has raised this issue previously. The problem with the bridges has been ignored. The two railway bridges at either end of the village are already dangerous due to the current volume of traffic, narrow roads, corners, and narrow pavements. An increase in volume of traffic and pedestrians will make this increasingly dangerous. It is a common occurrence for pedestrians to be "clipped" by wing mirrors of cars passing under the bridges. There have already been many near misses. These two routes are used extensively by small children going to and from school, in the morning rush hour. An increase of 31% of this scale can only add to the problems.
The high street is also a known pinch point; it current takes over 35 minutes to reach junction 6 of the A1 in rush hour, which is only 2 miles away. Increased traffic will only exacerbate this).
Deard's End Lane is already dangerous, and it can't be widened. It is unsuitable for heavy traffic and increased traffic will make it more dangerous and over crowded.
In the Plan (13.192) it states that much of the traffic in the mornings is caused by secondary school pupils going to school in the car. This is simply not true. Virtually ALL secondary school pupils use the trains (to Hitchin and Hatfield) and the school provided buses (to Stevenage, Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield, Hertford, Ware), and public buses. Therefore, the idea that possible secondary school provision could ease the traffic volume is simply inaccurate.
Regarding site KB4, there is an obvious lack of capacity on Watton Road and Swangley's Lane.

Schools:

A second primary school will change the village feel of Knebworth to more of a town, or urban sprawl. It will increase pressure on the roads under on the railway bridges because more people would be crossing the village each morning, in both directions, with young children. It would be naïve to assume that parents would automatically chose the primary school nearest to them, or on their side of the village

The plan is not positive prepared because it contains significant inaccuracy with regards to secondary schools. The plan (13.192) it states that much of the traffic in the mornings is caused by secondary school pupils going to school in the car. This is simply not true. Virtually ALL secondary school pupils use the trains (to Hitchin and Hatfield) and the school provided buses (to Stevenage, Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield, Hertford, Ware), and public buses. Therefore, the idea that possible secondary school provision could ease the traffic volume is simply inaccurate.
It does not seem likely that a secondary school would be built; there is not a shortage of secondary school places in Stevenage and so there would be no reason to provide a secondary school.

Other facilities (doctors, library, pharmacy):
The Plan states that the planning permission has already been granted for a new doctor's surgery and library. This is true, but this is to REPLACE the current doctor's surgery and library; this did not take into account additional population. Therefore, the services provided will not meet the requirements of a village increased by 31% (number of homes).

- 663 homes in Knebworth (31%increase) is not sustainable and the plan fails to consider and mitigate the impact on the village community, there are NO policies for infrastructure improvement.
- Impact of plans for 150 homes in Woolmer Green and 70 at Oddessy next to Knebworth have not been considered.
- The Transport Modelling report 2014 failed to include all of Knebworth in its study area despite the severe congestion on B197 during peak hours. Travel south to the A1M J6 (4miles) in the morning can regularily take 40 min. Northbound late afternoon traffic queue into Knebworth and into Stevenage from Knebworth. I live in Pondcroft Road which runs parallel with the B197. Every weekday at evening peak time (4.30-6.30) vehicles avoid queuing into Knebworth High Street by turning left into Gun Road and then right into Pondcroft Road using it as a" rat run". On the 18/11/16 in 15 min (17.40 - 17.55) I counted 77 vehicles travel north and 14 south past my house. Traffic also use Gun Lane as a rat run as that is parallel to Pondcroft Road on the other side of the railway. The Highways Agency 2015 report says the A!M J6 has "substantial queues northbound at the evening peak". Traffic uses the B197 to avoid A1M congestion. This will also get worse with proposals for more homes in Stevenage and further north.
- No proposals for jobs creation in Knebworth.
- Significant loss of countryside / agricultural land destroying a village environment.
-Infrastructure Development Plan para 12.39. Thames Water says further review is needed for sewerage capacity and the foul sewer system as our village does not have a dedicated surface water system. There are also major capacity issues at Rye Meads Sewerage Treatment Works.
- No justification to remove Green Belt land around Knebworth reducing the space between other communities and thus losing Knebworths identity.
- Lack of proper consultation as Site KB4 has been added late in the plan process. I was not aware of the site until the start of the consultation process even though I am registered with NHDC to receive all information.
-Significant impact on the two Conservation Areas in Knebworth from Sites KB1 & KB2.

I wish to object to the current local plan on the following grounds:
1. There is a lack of consideration of the effects of the plan on the infrastructure and life of the village as a whole. Knebworth has amenities that make it attractive to residents in terms of transport links, doctor's surgery, school, churches, library and small number of shops but these barely cope with the current demand let alone possibly increasing the population by at least a thousand. An additional primary school was promised nearly 40 years ago as part of the deal for accepting a previous development, but was subsequently later quietly dropped - what chance is there that we can trust now new proposals? Currently all children have to leave the village for secondary education.
2. Planning proposals have failed to take into account development put forward in neighbouring villages such as Woolmer Green to the south, and the impact of that on the facilities of Knebworth (eg schooling and transport)
3.It seems that issues of traffic have been largely ignored. Developments to the west of the village (sites KB1 and KB2) for 384 dwellings ignore the fact that all traffic from there will have to enter the village centre and main B197 via two narrow bridges under the East Coast main line railway, in Station Approach / Station Road, and Gun Road. The road is currently so narrow that there is only a single person width pavement available for both bridges, causing danger when pushchairs and prams are used, or when people are trying to control young children. The road is also so narrow that there is insufficient room for any white lines down its middle - the problem is confounded when lorries, buses and farm traffic try to use it - a problem which would be seriously added to by construction traffic. The potential for an accident or a bridge strike and consequent disruption of both road and rail traffic increases hugely. In addition, the proximity of the station to one of these bridges means that there are times of the day when rail passengers either on foot or in cars causes increased difficulty now. Development of the village to the east (site KB4) will vastly increase traffic joining the B197 and trying to get through the village. Currently the B197 can become congested very easily even outside rush hours as buses and delivery lorries try to get through. There is no indication that HCC Highways have given any consideration to these issues.
4. All sites proposed are in the green belt. Proximity to the countryside is an important factor in what attracted many people to live here initially, and this is something which is highly valued. There is a huge danger that over-development will cause Knebworth to lose its separate identity from the towns and villages that surround it. Knebworth would change from a village to a small town as a result of this development.
5. With the development of Site KB3 employment opportunities are being lost. There is no apparent provision or even consideration of the creation of local employment in the plans.
6. In terms of the broader infrastructure there is no indication that issues have been considered relating to drainage. Drainage connects to Rye Meads near Hoddesdon and there are already infrastructure constraints on this. There are already unresolved issues of flooding within the village, particularly with relation to run-off from the A1. Additional development of Site KB2 would only add to this.
7. There are 2 village Conservation Areas at Stockens Green and close to Deards End Lane, both of which are very close to proposed developments, and there is very little information about how these would be considered.
8. I am very concerned that changes to the village will be implemented on a 'piecemeal' approach, so that the above issues will be overlooked.

There is a lack of strategic approach to the proposal for Knebworth. When there is a development of more than 500 houses (Strategic Development Site), NHDC usually draw up a Strategic Policy. This has not been done in Knebworth. Although each of the four separate sites in Knebworth is under 500 houses, in aggregate they total 600+. It appears that NHDC are deliberately trying to avoid following their own procedures. All sites will have an impact on the village together, in terms of transport, services, infrastructure, and thus should be viewed as such, rather than as 4 separate sites.

There is a lack of coherent strategy for Knebworth. Proposed planning policy is not effective. There is no connection between housing, cumulative development and infrastructure and facilities required to support the proposed development.

The housing development is housing for housing sake and is not a co-ordinated plan to provide sustainable planning policy for the health and vibrancy of the village of Knebworth.

Road networks, schooling, retail and leisure facilities are not considered. Narrow bridges, bottlenecks for traffic and resultant congestion causes danger to life - the inability of emergency vehicles currently represents a real life danger and increased housing and lack of infrastructure would further compound this genuine risk.

Planning policy should be welcomed and provide a vision for the local area and for Knebworth. The vision lacks foresight eating into green belt and agricultural land to provide housing but little else.

A Legally compliant
The plan as it stands does not appear to be legally compliant as there have to be exceptional circumstances to build on Green Belt and the plan does not state what the exceptional circumstances are. In particular the proposed KB4 site plan would result in the encroachment of Knebworth on Stevenage and with the proposed separate development for Woolmer Green on the latter.

B Positively prepared
The plan should objectively assess the needs of the Village of Knebworth and for the reasons set out below I consider it fails on multiple counts.

C Justified
It is clear that there is a need for increased housing in South East England. However increased housing in a particular area, even when legally compliant, has to consider the implications on that area. Furthermore no significant consideration has been made for affordable housing which is I believe is almost universally agreed to be required.

D Effective
General comments
The plan would seem incapable of being delivered in its present form, even if legally compliant, due to it's failure to address multiple issues which are now discussed.
The plans for the Village of Knebworth involve building 663 houses. This is a massive expansion of the Village by about one third. Despite this size of development, there appear no plans for any changes in the infrastructure of the Village apart from the statement that there will be a need for a new primary school. However, it would appear that NHDC have overlooked a number of critical issues.
Knebworth Village is split in two by the East Coast Railway line. The two bridges which link the two halves are not built for today's traffic let alone a massive expansion of the Village. However more serious is the fact that they are hazardous for pedestrians. Walking young children under the bridges is a nightmare. Furthermore, there is not room for two people to pass and pedestrians run the risk of being hit by wing mirrors of passing cars as the road only just accommodates two cars, let alone anything bigger. The bridge by the station needs to be used by all those on the East of the railway line to access the station and also the Village Hall, and all those to the West of the line to access the Village shops and doctors surgery. NHDC appears to be continuing to have total disregard for the safety of the residents of Knebworth.

The plan proposes increasing the size of Knebworth Village by about a third and yet decreasing employment by removing a local employer and decreasing farm land which may also have an impact on local employment. This would result in Knebworth developing even more into a dormitory area. This will result in more utilisation of the railway, roads with implications for car parking.
a Railway: no consideration has been given to car parking around the station and the current consultation on the railways involves decreasing the service from Knebworth Station.
b The A197 has major traffic flow problems, particularly at peak times and not just past the shops as implied in the plan. In addition the rest of the roads in and out of Knebworth are country lanes such as Watton Road.
c Other car parking issues: the proposed expansion of the Village will result in more people using cars to access the shops on London Road. No consideration has been given to a solution to this, no doubt because there is no obvious solution.

In conclusion there appears to have been absolutely minimal comments in the plan about the infrastructure demands required for increasing the size of the village by about one third.

E Consistent with National Policy
Destruction of Green Belt land is against National Policy unless there are exceptional circumstances and these are not addressed.

F It would appear through failure to address the well recognised issues mentioned above that NHDC have not complied with their duty to co-operate.

I strongly object to the proposed expansion of the village of Knebworth on the grounds that such proposals are inconsistent with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), most notably Green Belt Policy. The town of Stevenage and villages of Knebworth and Woolmer Green now risk being effectively merged into one conurbation with the loss of Green Belt land and open countryside.
It is unsustainable for a village the size of Knebworth to accommodate such a huge increase (31%) in housing development. No consideration has been given to the negative impact on infrastructure, employment, education, amenities and drainage which gives rise to grave concerns on the effectiveness of the Local Plan.

Sites KB1 & KB2 are located where the road access to the locations is limited to Victorian designed and built underpasses and weight limited (7.5T) overbridge crossing the East Coast Main Railway line. KB4 access is via a narrow lane constricted by traffic calming chicanes. KB3 is currently a builders yard accessed from the heavily congested B197. All locations lead off the B197 which it is understood now carries more daily traffic than when it bypassed by the A1(M). The B197 through Knebworth is often gridlocked at all times of the day not just at peak times. See attached images of the access bridges.
As there is no provision in the plan for local employment all of the proposed housing will be for commuters who will need to travel through the already heavily congested choke points. Development of site KB3 will result in the loss of local employment.
Knebworth railway station on the ECML is heavily used and it understood that at peak times there are no additional train paths available through the twin track section South of Knebworth. Early morning trains often arrive at the Station already full with standing passengers so that those waiting at Knebworth cannot board. The Station car park and surrounding residential roads are already choked with parked cars and no more can be accommodated. There is no space available in the village centre for additional parking provision.
Due to the heavy congestion travel by cycle out of Knebworth is hazardous.
In view of this additional housing in the proposed Knebworth locations will create.
All sites apart from KB3, which would provide an insignificant amount of additional housing, impinges on the Green belt land surrounding Knebworth.
The proposed additional housing would overload the already heavily used village facilities - Doctors surgery - Dentists - Primary School.

I am writing to comment on the North Hertfordshire District Council's Local Plan 2011 - 2031 (Proposed Submission, October 2016). In particular, I wish to object to the proposed developments for Knebworth, namely KB1, KB2, KB3 and KB4. My objections are based primarily on three of the "Tests of Soundness" that Local Plans are required to meet and as a result is not 'positively prepared, effective or consistent with national policy'.
I am concerned about 3 areas where the plan for these 4 sites has not taken into consideration local feedback in the first consultation and has not set out a strategy demonstrating how these infrastructure and issues will be addressed. I address these issues in more detail below.
1. Traffic congestion in Knebworth
2. Inadequate local local infrastructure
3. Removal of of Green Belt protesction

1. Traffic Congestion in Knebworth
The proposed developments will all contribute significantly to increased traffic in Knebworth, which already struggles to cope with the existing level of traffic and is frequently at a standstill when there are accidents and delay on the A1. I have particular concerns as a local resident of the impact of increased traffic from the KB1 site, as Deards End Lane (the shortest access north) has 4 hazardous bends/ blind corners, 2 areas not wide enough for 2 cars to pass and a narrow bridge which is a Registered Historic Monument. This road is already regularly used as a cut through when the B197 has heavy traffic. This road cannot cope with any extra traffic. It is already hazardous to motor traffic and pedestrians. It should be noted that no pavement exists and local residents must walk in the road - effectively a narrow hedged country lane - in the traffic. This has safety and congestion concerts with no viable solution or alternative traffic management measures. It is not correct to assume that traffic from KB1 will use the other routes through Knebworth. NHDC of deferring any detailed Transport Assessment until planning application stage is unacceptable, and stops members of the public from commenting on this critical issues during the consultation process. This is unacceptable and without a proper Transport Assessment, the Local Plan is severely flawed.

2. Inadequate local infrastructure
The current Local Plan has a lack of strategy and consideration of local infrastructure which is inadequate to cope with the proposed level of increase of house with a proposed increase of 663 dwellings, and population increase of 31%. Current health care and education provision is already at capacity and overstretched, and although the plan mentions new health centre and library, it should be noted that these are to replace the current facilities. There is also major capacity issue at Rye Meads Sewage Treatment Works. Whilst a new primary school is proposd, there is no indication of any increase in secondary school provision.

3. Impact on Green Belt.
The proposals for KB1, KB2 and KB4 will also have a detrimental impact on the Green Belt which is vital in protecting the identity of Knebworth as a village and separate settlement to its neighbouring communities of Stevenage and Woolmer Green. The proposal to remove the Green Belt is contrary to national Green Belt policy (Section 9 of the NPPF) where the Green Belt is specifically intended to protect against this type of development. Its removal will be to the detriment of maintaining the separate identity of Knebworth as a village and contrary to the conclusions of The NHDC Green Belt Review, July 2016, which concluded that the Green Belt around Knebworth, primarily along the A1(M) corridor, 'overall makes a significant contribution to Green Belt purposes, helping to prevent sprawl, merger and encroachment' .. All proposed sites with the exception of KB3 will also contribute significantly to coalescence with Woolmer Green and Stevenage. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the plan has been developed with any reference to the proposed plan by Welwyn and Hatfield Council and plans for housing sites in Woolmer Green.

There is also no coherent strategy regarding education provision despite the increase in housing meaning an increase in teh number of children seeking primary and secondary school places. Knebworth is not currently well-served for secondary school provision, and whilst the Plan mentions 'all through' provision, it is not clear what this means.

Please see my response to the Local Development Plan 2011-2013 and the proposals for Knebworth, SG3.

I have been a resident in Knebworth for the past nine years and live here with my husband and two sons who both attend Knebworth primary school. My husband and I both commute daily into central London for work.
It is simply not feasible to increase the housing stock by 31% without reviewing the already stretched facilities in the village.
My objections are as follows:
* The proposed sites are within the Green belt and once the countryside has been eroded it will never return.
* Transport - my husband and I both commute to London daily of an overcrowded, over used and sometimes (in winter in particular) unreliable train service. The peek rate trains arrive at Knebworth full and it is a daily struggle to squeeze onto a train and is always standing room only. There is no plan to increase capacity in line with the additional dwelling in fact the proposals by rail operator include suggestions of reducing off peak services and fast commuter trains.
* Parking - is already a huge issue in Knebworth with roads around the station crowded and the station carpark having only a small capability. Surely these basic issues need to be addressed.
* There is no plan to provide secondary education. The current primary school is already oversubscribed and children leaving in year six are split among a number of schools in Hitchin/WGC/Stevenage and Hertford as there is no secondary education provision in the village. There is a plan to add primary places but two schools will simply split the village in half and further increase demand for secondary education that is not available.
* Lack of strategy - there is no provision made for the additional amenities required to support the increased population including rail capacity, secondary school and access to the doctors.
* Highways - The B197 is already very crowded at commuter times, how will this be managed? I am concerned that there already frequently traffic jams through the village. The crossing at station road/gun road under the railway bridge is already narrow and congested how will it cope with additional usage?
* Employment - replacing Chas Lowe which is part of the community with more housing and no employment opportunities is concerning.

The proposals put forward and the resulting destruction of the Green Belt all around the village would result in the village coalescing with Woolmer Green on the Western edge and Stevenage on the Eastern boundary and would create almost continuous housing development between the towns of Welwyn and Stevenage. The development has been put forward with no regard to adjacent authorities or their proposals, Stevenage Council having already concluded that much of the Green Belt land in question makes "a significant contribution to Green Belt purposes". No measures are put forward to alleviate the problems of traffic (there being two narrow bridges under the railway with restricted view and already insufficient footpaths that are not able to allow large vehicles to pass under them) and one bridge over the railway with a weight restriction and no footpath. The danger to residents trying to use footpaths less than one meter wide is already considerable, with increased traffic this would only be heightened. There is also no reference in the plans to the lack of adequate commuter parking at the railway station, the impact the loss a substantial part of the village high street (being changed from commercial to residential) would have on the local economy or the volume of traffic along the high street resulting in loss of trade to local businesses as people are unable to access them. There is also no provision for secondary education that would be required when all current provision (in Welwyn Garden City and Stevenage) is already at capacity.

Knebworth grew up around the railway station and it is bisected by the north-south East Coast mainline which runs on a raised (5 meter) embankment.

Access from the western side of the railway to the east and the main north-south road (the B197) is via (under) two railway bridges at Gun Road and Station Road; the roads are narrow and badly aligned making visibility difficult and presenting a danger to pedestrians.

These bridges have a usable traffic height of fourteen feet.

There's a third bridge where traffic passes over the railway at Deards End Lane; the bridge is a listed monument and has a 7.5 tonne weight limit. Access is via a narrow residential lane.

The fourth access from the west of the railway to the east is at Woolmer Green (Bridge Road) which is again a road under a badly aligned bridge, with a narrow residential section at its eastern end.

The B 197 is a two-lane road; the high street (past Chas Lowe site KB3) is a pinch-point due to parking on both sides but this has the benefit of slowing traffic in this retail / pedestrian area. The road runs parallel to the A1(M) and is used as a (very congested) relief road when the A1(M) is closed.

A recent planning application for a solar farm nearby (at Three Houses Lane) was turned down as inappropriate green belt development although it was designed as a temporary (25-30 year) structure. No exceptional circumstance exists to mean permanent housing would be appropriate on the green belt in this area where a temporary structure would not.

The only exceptional circumstance for green belt development in the region is that NHDC have failed to implement their plans the West of Stevenage site or a new Garden City and are now tight on time to provide any Local Plan at all regardless of quality.

The four proposed sites KB1-4 should be considered together when assessing the overall impact on Knebworth; taking into account employment and travel needs.

The Odessey site is within the Knebworth Parish boundary and was listed in an earlier Local Plan draft but has since been removed as unsuitable. In the interim planning consent has been granted for 70 homes on this green belt (currently leisure use) site.

The plan is unsound for Knebworth village as a whole, it is cumulatively unsustainable and risks creating a congested B197 housing corridor detrimental to the identity of the village and local economy. NHDC have not demonstrated how the infrastructure concerns will be met. The provisions for sites KB1-4 are wholly inadeauate.

Not justified as a better alternative is available West of Stevenage with less impact to residents across the district. Inconsistent with NPPF through allocation of significant contribution Green Belt land based on housing need alone.

Not a compliant process as changes to the NHDC documentation through the development of the draft through to submission versions has (a) excluded site KB4 until the last version and not properly included it (or the cumulative impact overall) in the modelling and assessment (b) changed the definition of Green Belt sites around Knebworth e.g. KB1 from significant to important without due reason in versions of the NHDC documents.

Not compliance as the Green Belt Review document has treated Knebworth as a town, whereas the Plan documents contradict this and treat is correctly as a Category A village. This leads to an housing over-allocation and under-assessment of the infrastructure availability.

Cumulative impact of KB1-4 plus adjacent Woolmer Green (150 houses) and Odyssey windfall (70 homes) is all known to NHDC since 2009 (see SHLAA 2009) and not considered in the Plan assessment of sites, infrastructure and its delivery. KB4 was also added in at the last minute and not assessed.

- Effects on the road infrastructure not determined. The traffic modelling assessment has excluded Knebworth and the B197 out of its scope and thus it is not adequate. The proposals in the plan (a new roundabout north of Knebworth) are wholly inadequate for the existing and planned capacity issues. Example photographs on a typical school weekday are attached to show London Road congestion.

- Ignored evidence of existing traffic congestion, this is publicly available for example from Google traffic statistical analysis. Whilst the Plan recognises the pinch point in the village centre, there are no solutions or analysis of the impact of the Plan.

- The harmful effects on the Conservation Areas through the obvious traffic patterns for the site access to KB1 and KB2, which have fundamental road restrictions which have not been assessed or considered in the site selection.

- lack of adequate schooling allocation / provision for the stated cumulative housing increases in Knebworth and immediate area including Woolmer Green and windfall

- lack of additional surgery allocation / provision for the stated cumulative housing increases in Knebworth and immediate area including Woolmer Green and windfall

- effect on the environment from and residents of KB1 and KB2 from citing homes and a primary school adjacent to the A1M, which is recognised as the most polluted and congested part of the entire motorway [ref. Highways England A1 East of England Strategic Study, June 2016].

- Effects on the local economy and village centre retail, contrary to policies SP4 and ETC2, via reallocation of site KB3 for housing only and not commercial use. In fact there is zero consideration of the local economy or retail in the Plan, despite these policies.

NHDC has deemed a threshold of 500 homes will trigger a need for a Strategic Policy. However Knebworth has 3 main sites split over only 2 landowners. There is a real risk of piecemeal development of the sites, which means that no single developer will address the fundamental infrastructure issues facing the village.

There appears to be no overall strategy - lack of consideration of the existing strain on local amenities and traffic congestion is apparent. The infrastructure in knebworth is already wholly inadequate - lack of sufficient school places, long waiting lists for Doctor appointments, severe traffic congestion particularly when the A1 is closed. The suggestion that there are plans for a new surgery, library etc is misleading as the existing ones are being removed.

The amount of proposed new housing will compromise the integrity of 'village' status - Knebworth will become a sprawling suburb of houses supported by inadequate facilities.

KB4 is a recent addition to the plans - this was not mentioned on the previous consultation. The addition of 200 homes will eradicate the narrow boundary of green belt buffer between Stevenage and Knebworth, merging the two. The recreation ground, which serves the whole village, will become surrounded by buildings and rural views enjoyed by all will be lost.
The proposal of a second primary school in the village is divisive and the village cannot cope with extra traffic delivering children to alternative sites.
Why has the Stevenage West proposal been put in reserve when this site is far better equipped to accommodate the extra homes with a decent infrastructure? Why has the proposed development of the brown field site at the Odyssey not been taken into account?

Conservation areas will be compromised.
Knebworth is already a 'squeezed' community with very tight boundaries between Stevenage to the North and East; the A1 to the west and Woolmer Green to the South.

The proposals for the development around Knebworth have not taken into account that there are no real plans to expand the infrastructure in and around Knebworth to make this level of development sustainable.
The areas where the infrastructure has not been considered are as follows:
1. Any realistic proposals for employment in the area. The likely result is that if this level of development goes ahead there will not be sufficient employment opportunities in the area immediately round Knebworth and the likely result will be that anyone living in the new development will probably commute to London for employment.
2. Transport. The rail service of which I have been a user since 1974 is unable to cope with the demand generated by Knebworth and the surrounding villages which use Knebworth station.The bus services will not be able to cope with the influx of children who will be forced to go to secondary school in Stevenage or Hitchin.
3. I was a pupil at Knebworth School and have lived in the village all my life. The school is at maximum or near maximum capacity already. It will not be able to cope with this level of expansion and the additional primary school on site KB2 is badly situated for access by other areas of the village.
4. Drainage: my father was chief engineer at Rye Meads Sewage works from its creation in 1953 until he retired from local government in 1974. There is insufficient capacity at Rye Meads to cope with the level of development proposed within the works' catchment area and the cost of expanding capacity and who will finance such capacity is not mentioned at all.
5. Roads: none of the sites are adequately served by the existing road structure. I live in Watton Road which is already clogged with traffic for most of the day. It cannot cope with the level of development which is proposed at KB4 which would have to be channelled onto Watton Road as there is no other road which could take that increase in traffic.
6. Railway: As stated above Knebworth station is extremely crowded at peak times even now. The level of passengers has risen markedly over the last 10 years. The increase of rail travellers as a result of the development will have traffic congestion effects and parking issues in the village which is already choked by cars.

I have been a resident of Knebworth for nine years. I commute to work in London by train and I believe Knebworth currently provides a good environment for my family, consisting of my wife (also a commuter) and two young children, but I feel the current local plan will have a significant negative impact on the quality of life for local residents.
The current proposals in the North Hertfordshire local plan for the Knebworth area include 663 new homes, this represents an increase of 31% on the current number of dwellings which I do not believe is sustainable. The proposed development will also significantly increase demands on local services and transport which are already under pressure, but it does not suggest any way in which these concerns will be addressed.
Generally, I do not believe that the North Herts local plan has considered many of the concerns of local residents and I think the local plan will have a very negative impact on the community. I have attended two (packed) meetings in the village hall and I do not believe I heard anyone speak in favour of these proposals, but many made valid arguments against it. I think this demonstrates that residents' concerns are not being listened to or addressed.
As such I object to the proposals and have outlined some of the main issues below:
- Village Infrastructure:
The plan suggests the village has an infrastructure that will sustain new development but I think this is wrong. The plan highlights proposals to build a new doctors surgery and library but these are simply replacements for existing facilities. When trying to obtain a doctors appointment last year I was told there was a 4-5 week wait, which suggests a lack of capacity.
Parking is a major problem in Knebworth with the station car park being small, and the train station attracting commuters from other local villages, this will only get worse with an extra 600 houses
Local roads. The developments to the West of Knebworth (KB1 and KB2) would lead to a large increase in traffic trying to travel from West Knebworth to the B197, the main road to Stevenage, Welwyn Garden City and the A1m. This requires traffic crossing under the railway, the roads under the railway bridges are very narrow, barely wide enough for two normal sized cars with one pedestrian path wide enough for one person. Increasing traffic here will worsen congestion and increase the chances of an accident. The only other access option for these sites is the narrow Deards End Lane which involves crossing a narrow, old, listed bridge. The sites to the East of Knebworth (KB4) would rely on the narrow roads of Swangleys Lane, past the primary school, or Watton Road, with narrow stretches that joins onto Knebworth High Street, which in itself is often congested.

- Transport
As a regular commuter, I know that trains from Knebworth at peak times are overcrowded, it normally involves standing and is sometimes difficult to get on the train at all. Large new developments in Knebworh, Codicote and Woolmer Green will make this problem much worse. Recent proposals from the local rail franchise holder (Govia) have suggested reducing fast commuter trains and off peak services.
The main road through Knebworth is often congested, particularly at 'rush hour' and when problems on the A1M means the B197 becomes the even busier. The proposed developments in Knebworth, Woolmer Green and Stevenage will make this much worse but no solution has been proposed
- Development of Greenbelt
The local greenbelt in very important in helping residents to maintain a healthy lifestyle, be it exercising, walking, or being out with children. It also helps to minimise the effects of pollution. The loss of this would have a negative impact and once it is gone it will never be replaced.
- School facilities
There is currently one school in Knebworth that is full. There are rather vague proposals in the plan for another primary school. Assuming the new primary school is built it will divide the village into two which would spoil the community feel of Knebworth. Also, there is currently no designated secondary school for Knebworth, children from the current primary school are dispersed between surrounding secondary schools and this problem will get worse, the suggestion for an all through primary/secondary school does not seem realistic and will not help pupils from the existing school.
In summary, I believe that the proposal to increase the number of dwellings Knebworth by 31% will exacerbate existing problems with local transport and services, as such, it is not sustainable. I do not think the plan has taken account of local residents views or addressed local objections.

Strategy:
The strategy is not clear is not clear at all. Therefore, the plan is not sound. Knebworth is a village, not a town as it is referred in the Plan.
Housing Proposals:
The addition of 663 new houses would substantially increase the size of the village. This is an increase of around 200 homes to what the Plan two years ago proposed. There were a number of issues raised then around infrastructure and none have been addressed. It's difficult to understand how the village can now support the additional homes without a sound strategy or plan.
It could be suggested that because of the proposed separate sites the developer obligations have been overlooked (I am aware that plans for over 500 plans should have a specific plan with developer obligations)
The site KB4 has not previously undergone any consultation. Surely this is against policy?
Planning has been granted for the Odyssey site to the north of Knebworth for approx. 70-100 homes. This doesn't appear to have been taken into account when determining amount of housing for Knebworth. A transparent and clear strategy should take these into account.
Chas Lowe site: Again, as there is no proposal for any commercial uses it is evidence of a lack of strategy for Knebworth. Rumour has it that this site has been sold to a 'retirement home developer' Do we really need more homes for the over 50s? in the village? We seem to have a vast amount already for what is a village community. If retirement flats or indeed any flats are built on this site the village centre will be changed dramatically.
The High Street in Knebworth is a designated village centre in the retail hierarchy under policy SP4. Therefore, any development of the village centre needs to take this into account. At a bare minimum, some mixed use should be proposed. There is already a disproportion of homes to leisure and retail facilities. Residents of Knebworth want to see the village thrive and the high street is at the centre of this.
There appears to be no consideration of developments to our adjacent parishes. For example plans for Woolmer Green of 150 homes (to the north of Woolmer Green) have not been taken into account. If all the proposals go ahead then Knebworth and Woolmer Green will merge and Stevenage and Knebworth would be pretty much joined. The town and villages will all merge into one.
This leads on to Green Belt issues. This green belt land makes a significant contribution to protecting spaces between towns and maintaining the Knebworth Village identity. Development of sites KB1 and KB2 will remove the Green Belt buffer between the village and the A1. There will be a dramatic loss of open countryside.
Drainage issues have been raised many times. Surface water is already a constant problem; this will be highlighted further with increased housing.

Transport:
The railway line poses huge challenges regarding transport / traffic through the village. The two railway bridges at either end of the village dangerous due to the current volume of traffic, narrow roads, corners, and narrow pavements. An increase in volume of traffic and pedestrians will make this increasingly dangerous. This has not been acknowledged or addressed in the plan.
These two routes are used children going to and from school, in the morning and afternoon. An increase in housing will only add to the problems and no doubt there will be accidents.
The high street is also a known problem/rat run and increased traffic due to increased housing will only exacerbate this.
Deards End Lane cannot be widened. It is unsuitable for heavy traffic and increased traffic will make it more dangerous and over-crowded.
In the Plan (13.192) it states that much of the traffic in the mornings is caused by secondary school pupils going to school in the car. Virtually ALL secondary school pupils use the trains (to Hitchin and Hatfield) and the school provided buses (to Stevenage, Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield, Hertford, Ware), and buses. Therefore, the idea that possible secondary school provision could ease the traffic volume is simply inaccurate. Perhaps a study could have been done to back this up?
Regarding site KB4, there is a clear lack of capacity on Watton Road and Swangley's Lane.

Schooling:
A second primary school on site KB2 has not been thought through properly. This would be adjacent to the A1 and as such noise and air pollution will be significant. In December 2014 the Environmental Audit Committee issued a report stating that: 'A ban on building schools, hospitals, and care homes near air pollution hotspots must be introduced to help cut thousands of deaths connected to the 'invisible killer' of traffic fumes.' This has really not been considered.
Furthermore introducing a second primary school to the village would change the village feel of Knebworth to more of a town. People choose to live in a village as they like the close knit community ethos. One school would inevitably be 'better' than the other and this would create a divide in the village.
It would increase pressure on the roads under on the railway bridges because more people would be crossing the village each morning, in both directions, with young children. I would be naïve to assume that parents would automatically chose the primary school nearest to them, or on their side of the village
Secondary:
13.193 mentions an 'all-through' school. It uses the term 'possibly' and 'provides the opportunity to look at alternative approaches' .This is left very 'woolly' and provides no re-assurance for Knebworth residents. .
It does not seem likely that a secondary school would be built; in fact, this was opposed some years ago.
Knebworth does not have a specific catchment for secondary schooling and access to good secondary schooling is an issue for our children. With a proposal for such an increased population this would put further strain on a lack of 'quality' secondary school places.
Other facilities (doctors, library, pharmacy):
The Plan states that the planning permission has already been granted for a new doctor's surgery and library. This is true, but this is to REPLACE the current doctor's surgery and library; this did not take into account the additional population. The Dr's surgery is always very busy and difficult to get appointments. Therefore, the services provided will not meet the requirements of a village increased by 663 homes and their residents.

The plans as a whole are not sound:

Traffic:
Knebworth already suffers from congestion and insufficient parking provision, leading to commuter parking in the residential areas near to the station and potentially dangerous congestion in the high street. These proposals would exacerbate the above problems and also lead to increased access traffic through residential areas such as Gypsy Lane, Stockens Green and Deards End Lane, none of which are suitable for use as through roads: Deards End Lane and Gypsy Lane are single track roads constrained by rail bridges which would have to be widened to permit greater access whilst Deards End Lane and Stockens Green are conservation areas.

A1
The proximity of the proposed development to the A1 is problematic. Noise and air pollution would be significant, the impact of which could only become worse as traffic levels increase. The proposals run contrary to the Environmental Audit Committee's aspiration that Councils should ensure that they "prioritise air quality in planning decisions" .

Green Belt :
The developments encroach upon significant elements of Green Belt which is contrary to national policy.

Sewerage:
The plan as a whole could exceed the constraints imposed by the current capacity of the sewerage system serving the area. This constraint led to previous plans for development to be abandoned and is not addressed in the current plan

Public Services
There is no commitment - only suggestions- to provide public services which will cope with an overall increase of 31% in the size of the village. Medical services, schools and access will all be affected and cannot be considered beyond the scope of plans of this scale.

The plans are not justified:
- No justification or consideration is given to the economic impact of the plans on the village e.g without increased local employment impacts on roads and railway are likely to be exacerbated
- the plan provides for a disproportionate rate of growth in Knebworth vis-à-vis other parts of North Hertfordshire which does not seem equitable
-the plans require removal of green belt land without any other justification than construction of housing
- benefits which the plan could provide - eg. improved medical services; greater access to school of choice, particularly secondary; stimulation of local businesses and increased employment opportunities; rail station development alongside improved services - are either ignored or given token consideration

Overall strategy:
There is no overall strategy. There are four sites within the village of Knebworth and as each individually does not reach a high enough number of houses there is no strategy. They should be grouped and then the number of houses would trigger a strategy. The plan can not be effective without an overall strategy. If there was a strategy there would be a plan to tackle the issues surrounding the highways and infrastructure needed to support the amount of housing proposed in the plan. It seems deceptive to have four separate sites in one village each individually less than 500 homes so that no overall strategy is required. There must be a strategy before over 500 homes are added to our village.
The plan proposed 663 dwellings which would increase the village size by 31%. The previous plan (from 2 years ago) proposed 200 less homes than this current plan. The issues that were raised when the previous plan was proposed have not been addressed and the proposed number of homes has increased.
I understand there is planning at the Odyssey Gym site to the north of Knebworth for approx. 70-100 homes. This doesn't seem to have been included in the plan for Knebworth though? If there was a proper strategy in place then this would have been taken into account. I also understand that there is a reservation for just over 3,000 homes on land to the west of Stevenage. Stevenage is a town with much better facilities to offer new residents than Knebworth.
Further to this there is a plan for an extra 150 homes in Woolmer Green. Woolmer Green, Knebworth and Stevenage will end up joined together if all the plans in place go through.
Part of the plan is to build properties on the Chas Lowe site. This will change the village centre as this site is currently commercial use. I understand the village centre should be kept for commercial use under policy SP4. This should be developed like the current Putterills/Robert Ellis Court site, with a shop front and then flats above and behind to retain the village commercial centre.
It is really important to note that Please note Knebworth is a village, even though it is referred to as a town in the Plan. The Green Belt land around the village makes a significant contribution to protecting spaces between towns and maintaining the separate identity of Knebworth as a village. Development of sites KB1 and KB2 will remove the Green Belt buffer between the village and the A1. There will be a loss of countryside and the open landscape setting.
The plan does not address the drainage issues that the village currently suffers and will be excerbated by any new development. My understanding is that there will be a major capacity issue at Rye Meads Sewage Treatment Works which is yet to be addressed.
The Plan says (13.195) that there are no mitigation requirements regarding transport. However, the Highways Agency raised this when the previous plans were submitted. The two railway bridges at each end of the village are already dangerous due to the current volume of traffic and the narrow roads and pavements. Both bridges only allow one car through at a time (there are no white lines down the middle of the road). The roads under these two bridges are used every day by children going to and from school. An increase in people using these two roads is a huge concern to those of us who regularly use them. I cannot understand how the plan can ignore this.
Furthermore, the high street and the roundabout at the north end of the high street where the current doctors surgery and butchers are, are both known pinch points. Watton Road and Swangley's Lane are both unable to take extra traffic. Watton Road has parking all down one side and speed bumps and Swangleys Lane is a narrow village road. The Highways Agency raised these traffic concerns when the previous plan was submitted and nothing has been done to address this in the current plan.
The plan (13.192) states that much of the traffic in the mornings is caused by secondary school pupils going to school in the car which is not true. Virtually ALL secondary school pupils use the trains (to Hitchin and Hatfield) and the school provided buses (to Stevenage, Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield, Hertford, Ware), and public buses. The plan offers a solution to this non-problem by offering a new 'through school'. I understand Herts County Council do not plan to make any extra school provision in Knebworth as they do not believe it is required and have said so when previous plans have been proposed. There is anough provision within Stevenage. I also understand a school cannot be built on a site next to a motorway which is what the plan proposes for the KB2 site. It would also involve yet more children using the road under the railway bridge to the south end of the village. A non-problem has been raised and the a non-workable solution to it has been proposed!
Interestingly the plan states that the planning permission has already been granted for a new doctor's surgery and library. This is true, but this is to REPLACE the current doctor's surgery and library; this did not take into account additional population. Therefore, the services provided will not meet the requirements of a village increased by 31% (number of homes).
Finally, I understand there has to be a consultation for any new site. Site KB4 has not previously undergone any consultation. This is against policy and I understand possibly illegal?

The number of homes proposed in the latest version of the plan is considerably greater than the previous version of the plan which was out for consultation in 2014/15- 663 v 433 a 53% increase. The total number of homes will increase by 31% compared to circa 20% in the earlier version. NHDC have failed to provide details of the of the rationale behind the increase.

The current proposals involve building on Green Belt which currently contributes significantly to the local environment and the semi rural character of the village. This is contrary to Government policy.

There are already significant traffic management/transport issues that need to resolved regardless of any new housing development in the village namely:

a) Parking on both sides of London Road in the village centre (a bus route) see photo

b) The 3 narrow railway bridges in the village on blind bends, two of which have pavements of inadequate width see photos

All of the above create congestion and safety issues

c) inadequate car parking for Knebworth station.

The Technical Note Odyssey Markides prepared for NHDC in September 2016 does not give any detail on proposed mitigation for Knebworth's traffic problems.

See attachment