Knebworth

Proposed Plan for House Development in Knebworth

I wish to register my opposition to the above proposal to increase the size of Knebworth village by a further 598 homes as I believe it to be unsustainable for the following reasons.

There is a lack of joined up thinking in the NHDC planning department and other departments in respect to housing needs, traffic implications, general infrastructure and future needs of the area.

The plan as it stands does not include details of the massive amount of additional infrastructure needed. Changes to the infrastructure of this magnitude which would necessarily accompany a 30% increase in homes in Knebworth, would significantly change Knebworth's character for the worse. Sixty five more homes have already been built or granted planning permission since the census in 2011 when there were 2002 dwellings in the parish.

Irrespective of the Council's destruction of the greenbelt, they would also be acting against their own 2006 study which stated that "Knebworth is not suitable for further development as it would risk the sustainability of the village".

There are two Conservation Areas adjacent to the proposed development areas; Stockens Green & Deards End Lane, which NHDC is responsible for maintaining. Allowing dense house building so close to these areas would go against NHDC's own publicly stated policy regarding the sites' importance, which includes a section of Park Lane. Furthermore Core Strategy EN2 Covering Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character states that Development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design, and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible enhance: The setting of, and views from Conservation areas. Therefore building a high density housing estate next to these conservation areas would contravene Core Strategy EN2 by ruining their setting and views.
The Strategic objectives ENV1, ENV2, ENV3 and ENV5 will also be contravened by such a huge scheme in relation to the present size of Knebworth.

Access to the sites, which have limited vision, has to be via one of 4 railway bridges which are pinch points and already cause congestion and accidents. Unless the railway bridges are widened the congestion will get worse.

Deards End Lane and Gypsy Lane are already too heavily used by traffic between Stevenage/Codicote and Welwyn/Stevenage. These roads are too narrow to accommodate 2-way traffic along much of their length. Erosion to the verges, drive entrances and the edge of the carriageway testify to this. Many of the entrances to these properties are blind making it difficult for residents to exit as well for cars using the road. The resulting increase in traffic on these roads would not only lead to further deterioration of these lanes (which are presently not adequately maintained by the Highways Department) but the lack of any pedestrian pathways would undoubtedly lead to increased pedestrian accidents.

Substantial alterations to and widening of Gypsy Lane and Deard's End Lane would be needed to allow two way traffic and a pedestrian footpath. Widening these roads, particularly Deard's End Lane, could only be undertaken by compulsory purchase of parts of many private, wooded front gardens. This would totally destroy the character of this conservation area. This would be totally unacceptable. The proposed developments would require new access points to be arranged off the A1M and the B197 south and north of Knebworth to provide a bypass for Knebworth and for access to the developments west of Deards End Lane and Gypsy Lane. This really needs to be completed before any development can begin.

Some of the low lying houses in Orchard Way and Broom Grove are already subject to flooding after heavy rain from excess run off from the fields to the west. Flooding is also a problem in the High Street where sandbags have to be used to block doorways during heavy rain. Some of the existing drains are blocked by stones and gravel. Covering those fields (052) with concrete would only make matters worse. No details are given of what type of Sustainable drainage systems would be needed for preventing flooding of parts of Knebworth are included. It would certainly have to be a large system such as a flood run-off storage reservoir near the middle of the new development where the ground slopes down, to control the flooding of parts of Knebworth including Orchard Way and Broom Grove.

The additional infrastructure and alterations needed to cope with over a 30% increase in the resident population includes extra car parks, expansion of Knebworth Station car park and ticket office, staff and opening times, a new school, library, a new larger village hall, a new doctors surgery with adequate free parking outside. Building houses on the Chas Lowe Site is really inappropriate as this site will be needed for a new doctor's surgery, as well as either a new library or larger village hall.

At present the plan contravenes Strategic objective ECON8 which requires all development to be supported by the necessary provision of improvements to infrastructure, services and facilities. It also contravenes SOC4 which enables rural communities to plan to meet their own local needs, especially through neighbourhood planning.

Many of the objections outlined above have been made to you by many people since early 2015 yet you appear to have ignored them. It is crystal clear that the proposed developments contravene many of your strategic objectives, as well as being out of all proportion to the size of the village and will create major congestion problems. You have also failed to explain how you have calculated the number of new houses needed in this area.

Now that we are leaving the EU the population growth should slow down and as a consequence your proposed developments what ever way you have calculated them should now be significantly reduced and delayed. To conform to SOC4 you need to be able to answer the concerns and objections you have received and provide detailed answers to accord with the provisions of ECON 8. Whilst you believe the developers will sort out all these issues raised, you need to be able to justify the housing need, answer concerns of residents over infrastructure etc or go back to the drawing board.

For the above reasons your proposed developments should not go ahead as they are presently drafted.

I would like to officially lodge my objection to the proposed developments in Knebworth.
I understand that North Herts have a quota to meet with regards to the building of new housing to support the growing population and I take a pragmatic approach to supporting this need sensibly.
As a professional engineer habitually I think about all the things that would be needed to support a new development and what saddens me the most is all the people taking North Herts for a ride in proposing building at the sites highlighted. Demonstrably they are not suitable for a plethora of reasons some of which follow;
Access...Knebworth is a village, with many heritage country roads. The trunk roads are full now...seriously?
Infrastructure...the drains are already at capacity...what are you proposing, digging up the entire village to put new ones in? (would like to see the legal case rising from inadequate planning on that one!)

Schooling...do the maths...is the proposed school really going to have enough space for all the families that you going to house there...
I find it interesting how North Herts are conveniently forgetting about green belt. When I have kids I would really like them to be able to get on their bikes and ride into the countryside, something I would class as essential.
North Herts have designated chunks of Knebworth as a conservation area. Again, this is being conveniently ignored.
So, where are we to build all these new houses you ask???
Well, all the housing that would be built would be taken up by commuters wanting to get to London as demonstrated by the morning parking situation near the train station.
As it happens the government is going to build HS2 calving a path through the country, with compulsory purchases. Would this not be an obvious time to build the houses at the HS2 hubs?
I would hate to see Knebworth devastated by these proposals that you have put forward and for motivations that are not clear. Please be transparent and publish which individuals and departments will benefit directly from the award of permission to build the housing, as there are no sensible reasons to.

To me, and I am sure most other Knebworth residents, the case against the plan for building so many houses is overwhelming on many grounds. I have little faith in the consultation exercise, seeing it as largely illusory, with little hope of anyone reading our emails let alone taking any notice. Nevertheless I will state my objections, to give you something to ignore.

First, this plan shows how meaningless the term "greenbelt" has become. You blithely build all over greenbelt land, turning the country into one extended rural sprawl. Once you have built some houses on our greenbelt land, there is progressively less justification for us to fight against further depredation, until all greenbelt land has gone. In the future people will look back on this and see it as a crime.

Secondly, I am sure some of the pressure for this huge expansion comes from private landowners with £ signs flashing in their eyes. A few years ago a proposal for a free school here was rightly rejected, but it was clear to me that the driving force behind the plan was the linked scheme to build a great many houses for private profit.

Finally, I think everyone accepts that there is a need nationally to build many more houses, and I certainly agree. However, the drift south is a national disaster. There should be much more development and redevelopment in the midlands, the north east, and the north west. Otherwise the south east is going to become one huge sprawl like Mexico City.

I am having no luck in navigating and registering my objection to the above housing development proposals for Knebworth, on your website.

Please take this email as my objection to the proposals for all of the proposed sites around Knebworth.

My primary concerns would be the traffic issues and the strain on current village resources, ie Station, primary school. The village roads are just not built to cope with such a huge increase in volume of traffic. These developments would be detrimental to the livelyhood of the village as we know it, putting huge strain on current resources and roads in and around Knebworth.

Therefore, I strongly object to the development of Knebworth. The plans have been badly thoughtout, clearly with no knowledge of this village.

I have been reading the content of your Local Pan for North Herts and can only wonder where your qualified planners were at the time of it's preparation as they seem to have forgotten the very basics of planning.

As I see it, having been a member of the Chartered Management Institute, the process should go something like;
1. Establish where you are now
2. Establish a need, both now and for the foreseeable future
3. Consider the people involved
4. Put in place a viable plan of action that will take you from where you are now to where you need to be, taking into account;
a. Immediate capital projects needed to provide the infrastructure that will facilitate the main aim
b. Materials and funding to complete the project
c. Changes that may become apparent during the course of the project
d. Agreement from all parties involved in implementation

1. Congratulations! It seems you have completed point 1 successfully - up to a point. There are two main problems with the current situation that you have failed to mention;
a. The NHDC and Highways Departments are currently failing to provide adequate flood protection and drainage to the extent that some roads and junctions are dangerous to pedestrians and motorists whenever there is more than just a light rain. Complaints to the Parish Council, our Member of Parliament, Highways and NHDC have received nil response (copies of correspondence can be provided).
b. The lack on maintenance to the back roads of our village has resulted in erosion to embankments and subsequent deterioration the hard metal of the road surfaces at the edges, not to mention the general deterioration of road surfaces across the village, and indeed, across the county.
c. If this current lack of maintenance is due to lack of funding, how can you possibly expect to maintain an even larger housing stock with the subsequent increase in traffic movements?
Overall then, on point 1, it seems you have failed!

2. There were 2002 existing dwellings in Knebworth in 2011. Now you state the need to add a further 663 up to year 2030. That is a 33% increase - or nearly 10 times the 3% actual increase over the last 5 years (65 homes - completions and permissions). Bearing in mind we are only talking of a planning period up to 2030, unless there are factors you are not telling us about, we should only be looking at about 9% increase - 180 houses. Bearing in mind we will soon be exiting the European Union and the Government are committed to securing our borders which should slow down immigration, we may actually see a lesser need over the period. To justify your stated need for 663 new homes the local population would need to breed like rabbits! So on point 2, you have also failed.

3. Let us assume for a moment that most people are not fools. They will, without reservation accept that some development to provide sustainable growth will be required in their village. They will not, however, accept figures and plans thrust upon them without a logical explanation of how they were derived. The fact that some land owners see £ signs in front of their eyes when you ask if they are happy to give up their land for building is not justification for proposing to actually build on all those plots. So once again, on point 3, you have failed.

4. The people (residents) are bound to be concerned when they see proposals that are not backed up by sound planning. Apart from the proposal to provide relatively inadequate additional primary schooling and a possible secondary school (no details) your plans lack any infrastructure details to provide the necessary roads, drainage (both surface and foul - There is a major capacity issue at Rye Meads Sewage treatment Works), local employment opportunity or additional retail facilities. Indeed, you plan to reduce the retail facilities by putting housing on the Chas Lowe site.
At a previous Parish Council meeting The NHDC representative said that no infrastructure details had been included with your Local Plan as "it would be up to the individual house builders to submit proposals for roads, flood mitigation and drainage in their individual planning applications". This is a total abrogation of the Council's responsibility and the villagers will not stand for such a slap-dash attitude towards such a major proposed development. Again, NHDC, your Local Plan has failed.

Now let us consider some of the details, particularly on the west side of Knebworth, that proves your Local Plan is ill-conceived;

Irrespective of your Council's proposed destruction of the greenbelt, you would also be acting against your own 2006 study which stated that "Knebworth is not suitable for further development as it would risk the sustainability of the village". Nothing has changed since then so it seems you make sound-bites to suit yourselves!

There are two Conservation Areas adjacent to the proposed development areas; Stockens Green & Deards End Lane, which NHDC is responsible for maintaining. Allowing dense house building so close to these areas would go against NHDC's own publicly stated policy regarding the sites' importance, which includes a section of Park Lane. Furthermore Core Strategy EN2 Covering Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character states that development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design, and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible enhance: The setting of, and views from Conservation areas. Therefore building a high density housing estate next to these conservation areas would contravene Core Strategy EN2 by ruining their setting and views. The Strategic objectives ENV1, ENV2, ENV3 and ENV5 will also be contravened by such a huge scheme in relation to the present size of Knebworth.

Access to these two sites, has to be via one of 4 narrow railway bridges, 3 of which have limited vision, which are pinch points and already cause congestion and accidents. Unless the railway bridges are widened the congestion will get worse. However, widening these bridges and straightening the approaches is not a viable option, especially the one at Deards End Lane. The best of the 4 bridges is the one at Woolmer Green but the road to the west of it is a single track along Wych Elm Lane between open fields

Deards End Lane and Gypsy Lane are already too heavily used by traffic between Stevenage & A1(M), and Codicote, Whitwell, Wheathampstead, Harpenden, Luton and Welwyn. These roads are too narrow to accommodate two way traffic along much of their length. Already, erosion to the verges, drive entrances and the edge of the carriageway testify to this with many potholes. Many of the entrances to these properties are blind making it difficult for residents to exit as well for cars using the road. The resulting increase in traffic on these roads would not only lead to further deterioration of these lanes, and the fact they lack any pedestrian pathways would undoubtedly lead to increased pedestrian accidents. This danger to pedestrians through lack of pathways and flooding is a constant concern as vehicles have been monitored along Deards End Lane at over 40 miles per hour. Pedestrian accidents have been reported to the Police and the Council but requests to introduce a 20 miles per hour speed limit have either been flatly refused "until someone is killed", or been pushed from pillar to post - each department denying it is their job.

Widening these roads, particularly Deard's End Lane, would totally destroy the character of this conservation area and would be totally unacceptable. The proposed developments would require new access points to be arranged off the B197 and the A1(M) B197 south and north of Knebworth to provide a bypass for Knebworth and for access to the developments west of Deards End Lane and Gypsy Lane. This would be essential before any development could possibly begin.

You have mentioned in your plan regarding Knebworth "the High Street is a known pinch point, particularly when delays or incidents on the A1(M) result in the B197 being used as
an alternate route between Welwyn Garden City and Stevenage." With just a modicum of joined up thinking for the future, this problem can be partially relieved by bypassing Knebworth with a relief road. I would propose you consider the following;

The bridge at Bridge Rod, Woolmer Green is the only bridge offering reasonable access to the west of Knebworth. So;
1. Put a roundabout at the junction B197/Bridge Road
2. Improve the road Wych Elm Lane by widening and straightening slightly up to Gypsy Lane
3. From where Gypsy Lane veers away from being next to, and parallel to, the A1(M) motorway, make a new road continuing parallel to the motorway, through your proposed Gypsy Lane development site, to meet and cross over Park Lane at a mini roundabout.
4. Continue the new road parallel to the motorway, through your proposed development site to the west of Deards End Lane Conservation Area, continuing along the very west fringe of Knebworth Golf Course (which would not interfere with their fairways), to cross over Old Knebworth Lane at a mini roundabout.
5. Continue the new road parallel to the motorway, through the west side of the proposed Science Park to meet the A602.

This proposal would address a whole host of problems;
* Pinch point at Knebworth High Street
* Access to the west side of Knebworth
* Relief road in the event of A1(M) closure between Stevenage south and Welwyn
* Congestion at peak times for traffic accessing the B197 from the A602
* Now that QEII Hospital A&E has been closed, emergency ambulances would have a shorter time to reach Lister Hospital in the event of traffic congestion
* Traffic from Welwyn west, Whitwell and Codicote and all points west would have easier access to Stevenage and beyond
Failure to adopt this proposal would be a major reason for your proposed development west of Knebworth to fail. Proposals 1 - 4 above would be the minimum to justify ANY development west of Knebworth.

I continue to give details below, not just about your justification, or lack of, for the density of your proposed housing but also the need for such housing.
Some of the low lying houses in Orchard Way and Broom Grove are already subject to flooding after heavy rain from excess run off from the fields to the west. Flooding is also a problem in
the High Street and Pondcroft Road where sandbags have to be used to block doorways during heavy rain. Some of the existing drains are blocked by stones and gravel. Covering those fields (052) with concrete would only make matters worse. No details are given of what type of sustainable drainage systems would be needed for preventing flooding of parts of Knebworth are included. It would certainly have to be a large system such as a flood run-off storage reservoir near the middle of the new development where the ground slopes down, to control the flooding of parts of Knebworth including Orchard Way and Broom Grove. Flooding occurs at the junction of Deards End Lane with Park Lane EVERY time it rains as the controlling body does not have the funds or the inclination to do anything about it (see attached pictures) and this has been the case for many years. The surface drain at that point is currently 4 inches deep in sludge over the top of the drain hole and plants are now growing there. What hope is there for effective major flood defences elsewhere in the village, particularly if developers are going to asked to pay for it?

The additional infrastructure and alterations needed to cope with your proposed 33% increase in the resident population would have to include; extra car parks, expansion of Knebworth Station car park and ticket office staff and opening times, a new school, library, a new larger village hall, a new bigger doctors' surgery with adequate free parking outside. Building houses on the Chas Lowe site is really inappropriate as this is the most appropriate location for a new doctor's surgery, and new library rather than the restrictive site currently proposed in St Martin's Lane. Very short sighted! The Chase Lowe site should also be fronted by retails units to maintain the sustainability of the village centre.

At present the plan contravenes Strategic objective ECON8 which requires all development to be supported by the necessary provision of improvements to infrastructure, services and facilities. It also contravenes SOC4 which enables rural communities to plan to meet their own local needs, especially through neighbourhood planning.

Many of the objections outlined above have been made to you by many people since early 2015 yet you appear to have ignored them. It is crystal clear that the proposed developments contravene many of your strategic objectives, as well as being out of all proportion to the size of the village and will create major congestion problems. You have also failed to explain how you have calculated the number of new houses needed in this area.

To conform to SOC4 you need to be able to answer the concerns and objections you have received and provide detailed answers to accord with the provisions of ECON 8. Whilst you believe the developers will sort out all these issues raised, you need to be able to justify the housing need, answer concerns of residents over infrastructure etc or go back to the drawing board.

For the above reasons your proposed developments should not go ahead as they are presently drafted.

The infrastructure in and around Knebworth is insufficient for its needs in many places already.
The village centre would have to be flattened totally and existing roads widened to cope with traffic coming through.

The village centre and around virtually comes to a standstill due to congestion at peak hours and school times.
It is already unbearable so what would it be like if yet more houses were to be built on our green belts?

There is already insufficient parking for commuters from Knebworth station so parking for these must be found.
There are cars parked everywhere during working hours and yellow lining some roads has only helped move the cars a little wider around the village.

More schools would be needed a new doctors surgery shall be needed.
I could go on and on but you already know all this.

Knebworth is FULL.

See attached

I would like to register my concern and disappointment at the proposed local plan for the villages and in particular the village of Knebworth.

The plan is ill-conceived and puts incredible pressure on the local infrastructure in particular the local road and rail networks as well as on the local school. There is no secondary school provision which already requires our children to travel to school, in our case to Hatfield.

The traffic in and around the local area is already excessive and travel via rail more often than not overcrowded, late, cancelled, short formed etc Access to the proposed development on the west side of Knebworth is further complicated by the restricted access to that part of village by the narrow and low rail bridges which will cause major congestion.

I am also concerned about the over development on green belt which protects the area from merging into one huge conurbation of Stevenage and which will lead to flooding which is already a problem in Knebworth near the Royal British Legion and Knebworth Cemetery. Regional devastation caused by flooding has been in the news not over the past few years and is building on flood plains, run off areas and green belt is well understood to be a contributing factor as the climate changes.

Brown field site development is often ignored, such as by Welwyn & Hatfield Council adjacent to WGC rail station, with council's preferring to desecrate the green belt was it is cheaper.

My understanding is that Stephen McPartland MP has also challenged the wisdom of the plan and its impact on the villages and is proposing that NHDC withdraws the plan and pursues the development of a properly designed new town/ garden city on the Letchworth model with proper infrastructure planned into the construction.

I would like to object to the proposed plans for housing in Knebworth. As a resident of the village and a driver I already find it difficult to drive through the village and trying to turn on to London Road to go in either direction early morning and late afternoon is extremely difficult due to the amount of traffic queueing. Further housing will make this much worse as the roads are already congested.
With vehicles parked either side of the road in the village, traffic queues to get through and when there is a large vehicle, such as the bus, it takes much longer. There is little parking in the village for shoppers and more people living and driving In the village will exacerbate the congestion. It is already a danger to pedestrians as, even though there is a crossing by the shops, seeing past queueing traffic when driving in case there is someone crossing, is difficult.
The centre of Knebworth does not have the capacity to take further vehicles and ignoring this can only lead to further problems.

I am writing in response to the local plan intended for Knebworth and thought you should know a brief history of the village.

New Knebworth as it is known was developed in the late 1800's due to the introduction of the railway, thanks to Lord Lytton. Knebworth had previously been an agricultural village for hundreds of years and it's nearness to London provided a ready market for produce. In 1881 Knebworth consisted of 30 dwellings which occupied 250 people, it took a further 20 years during the industrial revolution for the village to increase to 522 residents by 1901 and the number of dwellings to rise to 109.

This may be over a 50% increase of inhabitants but this was at a time when an average of two cars per house hold was non existant. And the viĺlage had far greater scope to grow, which brings me to my first concern, with the proposed increase of 663 dwellings and a national average of two cars per house hold which I'm sure will be on the rise over the future years, you are potentially adding to the village at least 1326 cars that will frequently be travelling through the roads of Knebworth, having lived in the village for 27 years I as well as others know many of the A and B roads surrounding this area would not be able to cope. You have another potential increase of 300 cars to the neighbouring village Woolmer Green (1mile south) with their proposed 150 dwellings.
I have not yet seen serious consideration regarding the plans for the infrastructure of the village with any solutions that settle villagers concerns, this leads me to another statistic with an average of 2.3 people per household (based on 2011) you are potentially bringing to the village a further 1525 people, such an increase using these roads will increase the risk accidents occuring. The railway bridges that impose 2 regularly used roads (Park Lane & Gun Road)will be used by the KB1 and KB2 sites into the village by children to get to school, there is single file traffic through these bridges and a two foot wide pathway on a single side of the road of which many people already have to walk on to road to allow people to pass. National Rail have already stated they do not intend on widening the bridges! A serious concern.
Whilst on the subject of National Rail, it was stated on Bob.Fm on Monday 28th November that the service at 5:15 am pm will be executed, with carriages already being full at peak times and services being suspended how do you intend people who have to commute to work in London get to work? Via car? Right there is a reason for use of vehicles in the village to increase.

It is an end to the 2.4 children ratio as we know so an increase of 1525 people almost half of those will be children intending on going to school in the village. With 5247 (2011 census) already being able to live in the village, we will be required to have school spaces for at least 2000 pupils. The school at present holds space for 450 pupils and the extra school proposed will only have space for 200 pupils the other pupils will have to travel out of the village to go to school. Yet again another reason for the roads of Knebworth and surrounding area's to become saturated.

Knebworth Surgery has already had to join up to Merrymead surgery to cope with the workload of 1200 patients on their records and people at current struggle to get on a 3 week waiting list for an appointment. The NHS proposed 11% cutback on funds in 2015 and propose further cutbacks each year how will the village cope with an extra, 1525 who all have a right to National Healthcare cope? I would like to see plans in place.

The loss of Chas Lowe, will be hard felt in the community it has provided traders with a place to buy goods and also brought prosperity to small businesses on the High Street, I am concerned for the future of the High Street, as I fear Knebworth without bringing the traders in will become a through road and small business's will struggle before your plans of bringing more people to the village complete, almost like Beeston in Bedfordshire where the a1 runs through.

Furthermore leads me to my final concern the use of our Green Belt to provide housing with lack of consideration to our roots as an agricultural village, Saturating our village to the 30% that has been proposed will loose all site of our heritage, I understand housing is required but to use villages that do not have the potential to expand upon their infrastructure is pure carnage and an accident waiting to happen, when there is a suitable site for 3100 homes to the west of Stevenage and the increase of traffic will have less of an impact on everyone's lives and the roads. The KB1 site is home to a breeding pair of buzzards and breeding pair of kites, what will left to show the future generation at such close grasp to London if our green belt is used.
Potters Bar was developed in the early 1950's to deal with the overflow with Tottenham, just as Borehamwood was developed for the overflow from arsenal, and these have comfortably housed the growing community for 50 years, it is time North Herts Looked into the distant future and build something that can prosper not something that will make do and ruin the community people have worked hard to achieve.

Thank you for taking your time to read my concerns.

I wish to make comment on the local plan with respect to Knebworth issues:-

We am Knebworth residents for 36 years.

We believe that the present infrastructure cannot support the addition of 600+ new houses.

We also believe that the existing 2 road tunnels are dangerous and require upgrading.

Please take these matters into consideration during your deliberations.

I wish to register my strong objection to the proposed development in and surrounding Knebworth. My main concerns are based on the following main points:


* Severe risk of the village joining with Stevenage and thereby losing separate identity - effective coalescence.
* Green Belt removal from around Knebworth
* contrary to Government policy, the significant contribution it
makes to protecting the space between towns in the district and
maintaining the separate identity of Knebworth as a village

* Lack of a strategy for Knebworth means the plan is not effective
— no connection between housing, cumulative development and
infrastructure needed to support the growth sustainably
* Amount of housing
— increase of 663 dwellings in Knebworth 2011-2031 (31%)
— not justifi ed when Stevenage West land is reserved (3,100 homes)
— extra impact of Woolmer Green plans (150 homes) not considered
* Green Belt removal from around Knebworth
— contrary to Government policy, the signifi cant contribution it
makes to protecting the space between towns in the district and
maintaining the separate identity of Knebworth as a village
* Highways and transport impacts
— impact on B197, congestion on local roads and bridges.- Bridge at Deards end lane crossing railway narrow and hazardous, Station approach narrow and unsafe for pedestrians, and gun road same issues
*Severe overcrowding on the commuter train network already - system running at capacity in peak times.
* No consideration of local economy
— no proposals for jobs creation, no commercial allocation
— impact of reallocation for housing in village centre
* Drainage issues
— major capacity issue at Rye Meads Sewage Treatment Works
* Impact on countryside and landscape
— loss of countryside and open landscape setting
* Conservation and heritage issues
— impact on the two village Conservation Areas. Both of which have been well protected in the past.

OBJECT to proposed development.


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. Therefore, the plan is not sound.
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).
Deards 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 (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).

I write to express my concern for the planning in Knebworth as detailed in the paragraphs noted above.

I consider a crucial weakness to the planning to be related to the impact on highways and transport. Already, the high street in Knebworth is a bottle neck with congestion and queues of traffic at peak journey times on weekdays and through the weekend. This situation will be exasperated by the increase in traffic that should be anticipated with the addition of traffic from the new homes that are planned. Furthermore, the B197 from Knebworth through to the A1M junction at Welwyn, which is already heavily congested at peak times, will become impossible to use with the extra traffic from the suggested new build homes.

Bus and train journeys will also become increasingly uncomfortable with the addition of user numbers.

A further issue which does not seem to have been given due consideration relates to the limited capacity at the sewerage treatment works. The lack of foresight shown in this area could prove disastrous should the population be increased on such a considerable scale.

The removal of green belt land surrounding Knebworth is also an issue of concern. This space makes a significant contribution to protecting the separate identity of Knebworth and its loss would be a disaster. The influx of families to new homes would also strip Knebworth of its village identity.

North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031: Housing development in Knebworth

With regard to the above, I write to register my objection to the proposed development of all green belt land on the outskirts of Knebworth, but in particular to the western edge of the village, referred to in the latest documentation as 52 Land at Deards End and 53 Land at Gipsy Lane.

Green Belt
Proposed sites 52 and 53 are currently part of the Knebworth House Estate. For many years, the estate has repeatedly offered this land for development to one scheme or another (regardless of the suitability of the land or location), eager to profit no doubt from its sale.

Both parcels of land are located within the green belt.

They form a buffer between the village and the farmland to the west and as such are important to the preservation of what is left of the rural character of the village and the farmland around it. The green belt policy was established to 'control urban growth, with the idea that there is a ring of countryside where development will be resisted for the foreseeable future, maintaining an area where agriculture, forestry and outdoor leisure can be expected to prevail'.

Recently, planning permission for a solar farm to be built on green belt land to the east of Knebworth (south of Three Houses Lane) was refused by the Secretary of State. The main issues for refusal were:
* harm to the green belt;
* loss of agricultural land; and
* the impact on local listed buildings.
If urban-scale development proceeds on sites 52 and 53, the green belt would certainly be harmed, there would be loss of superb agricultural land (which post-Brexit would be more vital than ever) and both proposed sites are next to conservation areas - Stockens Green/Gipsy Lane and Deards End Lane.

Water supply and sewage system
Any large-scale development would cause serious problems with regard to the supply of water to this development and with the disposal of sewage from it. Inevitably, households already established in this area would suffer further loss of water pressure (it is already very low, following the building of the high-density Orchard Way/Broom Grove estate) and also be affected by the over-usage of the sewage system. Extensive infrastructure investment would be required and I think it unlikely developers would be willing to lose too much profit investing substantially in that. I dare say any major works would then fall at great expense to the taxpayer.

Flooding
As things stand, properties in the Orchard Way/Broom Grove estate are increasingly subjected to flooding by water coming off proposed site 53 between Gipsy Lane and the motorway, despite much of this water being absorbed into the fields.

A report was commissioned after flooding occurred in 2014. With more and more extreme weather events happening (a problem not likely to lessen in the future), main recommendations explored to help reduce future flooding were:
* survey and clean the highway drainage system;
* increase frequency of gully cleaning;
* develop a programme of surface water management measures;
* look at individual property level protection; and
* monitor the effectiveness of the A1(M) attenuation storage pond.
As I currently understand it, measures recommended to help alleviate the problem have not been carried out fully by the necessary parties, i.e. the landowner (Knebworth House Estate), Hertfordshire County Council (responsible for Gipsy Lane, Orchard Way and Broom Grove) and the Highways Agency (responsible for the motorway).

If site 53 is concreted over, even less water will be absorbed and more flooding will occur - both on the Orchard Way/Broom Grove estate and in Gipsy Lane.

Access to/from the proposed development sites
To the west of the proposed sites lies the A1(M) motorway and beyond that agricultural and other rural land. The roads are narrow and, because of the volume of traffic currently carried, can be dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists.

To the east is the main body of Knebworth. Traffic in the area is heavy for most of the day, and almost invariably, every day sees a traffic jam of some sort on the main road, particularly when trouble arises on the motorway.

Any residents in the proposed new housing developments would need to drive from their homes to the village centre for local facilities, or to gain access to Stevenage in the north, Welwyn Garden City in the south and elsewhere. The new developments would make driving through Knebworth horrendous.

To get to the village centre, motorists would be forced to drive over either a small railway bridge from Deards End Lane to join the main road, or under one of two railway bridges over minor roads. I understand that the bridge over Deards End Lane has a weight restriction on using it and the two other bridges provide a narrow and awkwardly angled road for traffic using these routes.

Substantial additional traffic would also have environmental implications, particularly as all routes would be directed through conservation areas.

During the late 1970s the Orchard Way/Broom Grove estate was built, with some 220 houses (of which I believe 20 were built on a site originally designated for a primary school). There is one entrance/exit to this estate - onto Gipsy Lane and thereby through the conservation area. Since this estate was built, car ownership has increased tenfold and so the volume of traffic has thereby increased. This estate has a huge impact today on the Stockens Green/Gipsy Lane conservation area, but those 220 households will be dwarfed in comparison to the proposed development (which again has a school earmarked for inclusion, but will probably be quietly disregarded in favour of more profitable 'executive' homes and a few extra cars).

My point is this. Cars have been, and continue to be, a very real problem in the village. The Local Plan proposes swelling the village by over 30%. Driving through the village is a problem now. Parking is a problem now. Nothing has ever been done to satisfactorily resolve this. Building hundreds of new homes is hardly a solution to this.

Impact on rail travel
The village currently has a very large number of residents who commute daily to/from London for work. During weekday peak periods, there is normally overcrowding on services and the small station's platforms are generally very busy. In recent years, station usage has increased by 71% (with commuters from Knebworth and surrounding villages), and rail services have not adjusted to account for the demand. With the Victorian viaduct at Welwyn, there is limited capacity to substantially increase services that would be able to stop at Knebworth without impacting the faster, non-stopping services to/from the north.

Strain on local facilities
Doctors' surgery
The surgery is totally inadequate for the needs and demands of the current population of Knebworth and those in the surrounding villages who use this surgery as well, and at present there is some uncertainty where the surgery will finally be relocated to after its current site is redeveloped for flats.

The proposed new location (above the library!) is a long way from being settled as several residents in that area are unhappy with this location, the general appropriateness of this new site and the disruption/increase of traffic this would bring to the immediate area. A site that would have lent itself well (a former nursing home), has now been developed with 13 residential properties. That site would have allowed the surgery to expand sufficiently to cope with the requirements residents so badly need right now.

Primary school
The local primary school is, as I understand it, almost full to capacity. To build a separate, additional primary school is ill thought-out and in my view unnecessary. The existing school could have been substantially extended if the land recently developed next to it had been used. Flats were built instead (this time for affluent retirees). However, I do still feel the current school could be extended if necessary, by utilising some of its recreational ground. And why split resource to two different sites, when one site could benefit so much more?

Retail/businesses
Other than the high street, there are no more areas within the village for any form of retail/business expansion in which to serve the community. Every area that is available (or will become available), is and has been earmarked for residential development. This illustrates to me that there is no well thought-out plan intended for Knebworth to help it flourish, nor any prospect of offering new employment opportunities for locals. The reality is that most residents earn a living away from the village and it is unfortunately turning into somewhat of a dormitory.

Conclusion
The development proposed for Knebworth has exasperated local residents, with the majority opposing the plan put forwards.

The Local Plan shows proposals that have completely ignored residents' concerns and objections voiced during public meetings, in publications and online, by adding even more development sites than initially schemed. The growth is much too large for the area.

The Local Plan does not bring any benefits to Knebworth, only to property developers who will scar the landscape for profit before moving on.

The Local Plan is neither reasonable nor fair. It does not bring opportunity for employment within the village, or improve the quality of life for residents who moved here for a semi-rural environment. It will place strain on village facilities, resource and infrastructure.

The Local Plan is attempting to urbanise areas where it should not. It is planned solely around the willingness of landowners prepared to sell, not on the basis of whether the location and potential for good, reliable infrastructure and facilities is achievable.

The Local Plan would be the ruin of Knebworth.

North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031: Housing development in Knebworth

With regard to the above, I write to register my objection to the proposed development of all green belt land on the outskirts of Knebworth, but in particular to the western edge of the village, referred to in the latest documentation as 52 Land at Deards End and 53 Land at Gipsy Lane.

Green Belt
Proposed sites 52 and 53 are currently part of the Knebworth House Estate. For many years, the estate has repeatedly offered this land for development to one scheme or another (regardless of the suitability of the land or location), eager to profit no doubt from its sale.

Both parcels of land are located within the green belt.

They form a buffer between the village and the farmland to the west and as such are important to the preservation of what is left of the rural character of the village and the farmland around it. The green belt policy was established to 'control urban growth, with the idea that there is a ring of countryside where development will be resisted for the foreseeable future, maintaining an area where agriculture, forestry and outdoor leisure can be expected to prevail'.

Recently, planning permission for a solar farm to be built on green belt land to the east of Knebworth (south of Three Houses Lane) was refused by the Secretary of State. The main issues for refusal were:
* harm to the green belt;
* loss of agricultural land; and
* the impact on local listed buildings.
If urban-scale development proceeds on sites 52 and 53, the green belt would certainly be harmed, there would be loss of superb agricultural land (which post-Brexit would be more vital than ever) and both proposed sites are next to conservation areas - Stockens Green/Gipsy Lane and Deards End Lane.

Water supply and sewage system
Any large-scale development would cause serious problems with regard to the supply of water to this development and with the disposal of sewage from it. Inevitably, households already established in this area would suffer further loss of water pressure (it is already very low, following the building of the high-density Orchard Way/Broom Grove estate) and also be affected by the over-usage of the sewage system. Extensive infrastructure investment would be required and I think it unlikely developers would be willing to lose too much profit investing substantially in that. I dare say any major works would then fall at great expense to the taxpayer.

Flooding
As things stand, properties in the Orchard Way/Broom Grove estate are increasingly subjected to flooding by water coming off proposed site 53 between Gipsy Lane and the motorway, despite much of this water being absorbed into the fields.

A report was commissioned after flooding occurred in 2014. With more and more extreme weather events happening (a problem not likely to lessen in the future), main recommendations explored to help reduce future flooding were:
* survey and clean the highway drainage system;
* increase frequency of gully cleaning;
* develop a programme of surface water management measures;
* look at individual property level protection; and
* monitor the effectiveness of the A1(M) attenuation storage pond.
As I currently understand it, measures recommended to help alleviate the problem have not been carried out fully by the necessary parties, i.e. the landowner (Knebworth House Estate), Hertfordshire County Council (responsible for Gipsy Lane, Orchard Way and Broom Grove) and the Highways Agency (responsible for the motorway).

If site 53 is concreted over, even less water will be absorbed and more flooding will occur - both on the Orchard Way/Broom Grove estate and in Gipsy Lane.

Access to/from the proposed development sites
To the west of the proposed sites lies the A1(M) motorway and beyond that agricultural and other rural land. The roads are narrow and, because of the volume of traffic currently carried, can be dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists.

To the east is the main body of Knebworth. Traffic in the area is heavy for most of the day, and almost invariably, every day sees a traffic jam of some sort on the main road, particularly when trouble arises on the motorway.

Any residents in the proposed new housing developments would need to drive from their homes to the village centre for local facilities, or to gain access to Stevenage in the north, Welwyn Garden City in the south and elsewhere. The new developments would make driving through Knebworth horrendous.

To get to the village centre, motorists would be forced to drive over either a small railway bridge from Deards End Lane to join the main road, or under one of two railway bridges over minor roads. I understand that the bridge over Deards End Lane has a weight restriction on using it and the two other bridges provide a narrow and awkwardly angled road for traffic using these routes.

Substantial additional traffic would also have environmental implications, particularly as all routes would be directed through conservation areas.

During the late 1970s the Orchard Way/Broom Grove estate was built, with some 220 houses (of which I believe 20 were built on a site originally designated for a primary school). There is one entrance/exit to this estate - onto Gipsy Lane and thereby through the conservation area. Since this estate was built, car ownership has increased tenfold and so the volume of traffic has thereby increased. This estate has a huge impact today on the Stockens Green/Gipsy Lane conservation area, but those 220 households will be dwarfed in comparison to the proposed development (which again has a school earmarked for inclusion, but will probably be quietly disregarded in favour of more profitable 'executive' homes and a few extra cars).

My point is this. Cars have been, and continue to be, a very real problem in the village. The Local Plan proposes swelling the village by over 30%. Driving through the village is a problem now. Parking is a problem now. Nothing has ever been done to satisfactorily resolve this. Building hundreds of new homes is hardly a solution to this.

Impact on rail travel
The village currently has a very large number of residents who commute daily to/from London for work. During weekday peak periods, there is normally overcrowding on services and the small station's platforms are generally very busy. In recent years, station usage has increased by 71% (with commuters from Knebworth and surrounding villages), and rail services have not adjusted to account for the demand. With the Victorian viaduct at Welwyn, there is limited capacity to substantially increase services that would be able to stop at Knebworth without impacting the faster, non-stopping services to/from the north.

Strain on local facilities
Doctors' surgery
The surgery is totally inadequate for the needs and demands of the current population of Knebworth and those in the surrounding villages who use this surgery as well, and at present there is some uncertainty where the surgery will finally be relocated to after its current site is redeveloped for flats.

The proposed new location (above the library!) is a long way from being settled as several residents in that area are unhappy with this location, the general appropriateness of this new site and the disruption/increase of traffic this would bring to the immediate area. A site that would have lent itself well (a former nursing home), has now been developed with 13 residential properties. That site would have allowed the surgery to expand sufficiently to cope with the requirements residents so badly need right now.

Primary school
The local primary school is, as I understand it, almost full to capacity. To build a separate, additional primary school is ill thought-out and in my view unnecessary. The existing school could have been substantially extended if the land recently developed next to it had been used. Flats were built instead (this time for affluent retirees). However, I do still feel the current school could be extended if necessary, by utilising some of its recreational ground. And why split resource to two different sites, when one site could benefit so much more?

Retail/businesses
Other than the high street, there are no more areas within the village for any form of retail/business expansion in which to serve the community. Every area that is available (or will become available), is and has been earmarked for residential development. This illustrates to me that there is no well thought-out plan intended for Knebworth to help it flourish, nor any prospect of offering new employment opportunities for locals. The reality is that most residents earn a living away from the village and it is unfortunately turning into somewhat of a dormitory.

Conclusion
The development proposed for Knebworth has exasperated local residents, with the majority opposing the plan put forwards.

The Local Plan shows proposals that have completely ignored residents' concerns and objections voiced during public meetings, in publications and online, by adding even more development sites than initially schemed. The growth is much too large for the area.

The Local Plan does not bring any benefits to Knebworth, only to property developers who will scar the landscape for profit before moving on.

The Local Plan is neither reasonable nor fair. It does not bring opportunity for employment within the village, or improve the quality of life for residents who moved here for a semi-rural environment. It will place strain on village facilities, resource and infrastructure.

The Local Plan is attempting to urbanise areas where it should not. It is planned solely around the willingness of landowners prepared to sell, not on the basis of whether the location and potential for good, reliable infrastructure and facilities is achievable.

The Local Plan would be the ruin of Knebworth.

I object to the proposal to build 663 houses because it is not justified and it does not benefit the people of Knebworth for the following reasons:-

there is no local demand for development
there is no job creation
loss of green belt, landscape, countryside and space
added strain on already creaking and aged infrastructure
unnecessary loss of quality of life due to overcrowding
increased traffic on already crowded roads

Site KB4. Land East of Knebworth
the Green Belt already pitifully thin would be reduced to a few yards and if the neighbouring authority (Stevenage) were to insist on a similar infringement it would be non- existent.
Flooding and Drainage. This area is prone to flood due to surface water and subsequent back flow has flooded property on the south side with raw sewage. Development downstream would increase the risk of this problem. There is also the risk of endangering the purity of the water from the Watton Road Bore pumping station situated here.

I received a very negative leaflet yesterday from Knebworth Parish Council and only given one day to respond. Surely the PC should give an even not such one sided view. New houses and transport links to the area would bring new jobs too. The occupants will use local shops and transport and they may even open new businesses up not to mention the fact they would be paying council tax etc. We all have to live somewhere

We fully support the need for more housing in Britain and for every community to contribute to this. Unfortunately you can't shift demand away from the South East in spite of the distortions in land and house prices in the region, so we have to shoulder more of the burden.

However, rather than the piecemeal expansion of existing communities, it would be far preferable to build a new town complete with appropriate infrastructure and with enormous economies of scale in cost terms. Such a new town would have to have a railway station and good (i.e. dual carriageway) access to the road network. It is a surprise that no mention is made of this in the full document.

It's a shame that Arseley isn't all in North Herts but a joint deal with Beds to create a new town there would be a good idea. Failing this a new town south of Ashwell Station would also be an excellent choice. The village is well away from this area which would reduce protests. A road tunnel (with pavements) under the A505 would be necessary and is in any case way overdue.

A new town would also give scope for a large proportion of social as opposed to 'affordable' housing. If built in Knebworth, the latter would rapidly be subject to market forces and become unaffordable. Furthermore the scope for local job creation would be much greater if larger employers were to attracted - something that can't happen in Knebworth

We appreciate why above the above average expansion of Knebworth within North Herts is, on paper, attractive given its railway station and excellent shops and other facilities. However we doubt the ability of planners or anyone else to come up with solutions to the dramatic impact it will have on existing road traffic pinch points. We presume that the rail bridges can be widened and straightened out, but the B 197, High Street, Watton Road, Gipsy Lane, Deards End Lane, Stockens Green etc. would not be able to cope with the extra traffic without very extensive road widening and straightening. A ring road might help. And parking in the High Street would have to be restricted - something that has thwarted political intervention for centuries.

Other infrastructure demands (schooling, sewage, drainage, road and pavement upkeep, parking etc) are just as important as plonking down 663 dwellings. Far from being overly suspicious, we don't think anyone round here trusts the relevant authorities to tackle such issues in a cohesive manner. And yet these will have a major bearing on the everyday life of current and future residents. More so than the plonking down in fact.

We don't buy the Green Belt argument about development. When we fly into Luton we are always amazed at the amount of greenery there is around the Stevenage and N Herts communities. If each of these was expanded for housing by 5% in area it would have no discernable impact on the greenery. People (other than those on the immediate boundary) would not notice - mainly because hardly any of them access the countryside in question in the first place. Sneaking a bit of land from the green belt will not lead to the total industrialisation of the countryside as suggested by the preposterous Sandridge commercial being shown in St.Albans cinema.

Knebworth is already overcrowded and any further expansion will be to the detriment of the village and its inhabitants, as well as to the destruction of its rural environment which should be protected within the confines of the Green Belt.

Both of the two bridges leading into the village - Station Road and Gun Lane - are both extremely narrow, both situated on bends on bends of the road, with vision impaired, and are not suitable for any further increase in traffic (which would obviously arise if building took place on any of the suggested areas).

The trains are already overcrowded in, and around, the rush hour periods, with passengers boarding at Knebworth frequently having to stand. It's extremely likely that any new houses built in the area will be homes for commuters, further adding to the transport problems, both on road and rail.

Quite simply, the building of more houses with the area will further add to the problems already existing.

I recently moved into Knebworth village this summer and I find it very worrying about the sheer number (663 dwellings) of new houses proposed.

We moved to Knebworth from a town setting and the things that attracted me to the village and to living here in the first place such as living in the countryside and in a community setting seem to be under threat from these proposed dwellings as it looks like much of the countryside is under threat for development. This will have a huge impact on wildlife/conservation and also our identity as a village.

I commute to London on a regular basis for my work and very rarely get a seat from Knebworth or London Kings Cross as the village is already pushed enough for resources with the number of existing residents commuting from the village. My partner also drives to work and the traffic around the village can be dreadful during peak times. We are already struggling in the village as many people obviously commute for work (as jobs are scarce in the village) and I don't believe the current infrastructure will be able to support any more dwellings. I also cannot see how the infrastructure can be expanded to support the number of dwellings proposed!

I understand that more homes need to be made available for our increasing population. However, rather than targeting countryside villages which cannot dream to support these kinds of numbers, would it not be better to target areas such as Stevenage West which would be much better able to cope and be able to put the necessary infrastructure/ resources in place?

I hope you take these points under consideration and that you will fully consider all other available options in relation to this plan as I truly believe that Knebworth village will not be able to support the current dwellings proposed.

As a resident of Knebworth, I already see the difficulty of traffic congestion, parking etc in our village and I feel very strongly that insufficient thought and investigation has gone into the proposed housing development at sites in Knebworth.
Please see the following points below:-
No real infrastructure investigation. The roads leading into and around Knebworth are always congested - not only at peak commuter times but throughout the day.
At peak times, everywhere comes to a standstill. People avoid driving on the A1 which cannot cope with the volume of traffic, so instead use the village roads which cannot cope with the sheer number of cars. This leads to a dangerous situation for drivers and pedestrians alike, and makes any form of car journey horrendously long. This is the present position - heaven knows what would happen if more houses were built!!!
Any development will not help local employment - there is not additional employment, people will have to commute - so more chaos. Housing here is already very expensive, so is barely affordable to people with local jobs. Therefore more commuters needing larger salaries.
In addition, the rail service is reducing in Knebworth, with less trains per day - so forcing more people to drive. That will cause major problems with the current number of residents. It will be impossible with more people.
As well as the effect to the quality of life, any new building will affect conservation, nature and the impact of loss of countryside. There is a danger that losing our green belt will limit the space between towns and Knebworth will lose its identity as a village.
It is totally impractical to build in Knebworth, it can and will not work.
The solution is another Garden City development elsewhere.
Please, please look carefully at the facts.

See attachment

I am writing in response to the above consultation. I live in Knebworth and I object to the plans for new houses to be built in Knebworth and, in particular, the plan to build new houses on site KB2.

Is the Plan positive?

No.

I am not aware of any engagement with local residents. I have not been engaged in this plan in any way.

Had I been given the opportunity to pass comment, I would have objected in the strongest possible terms.

The plan fails entirely to recognise the local infrastructure issues. Knebworth's local services are already highly over subscribed and cannot take any more demand on them . The High Street is already highly congested, the trains from Knebworth station are already full and there is already a severe lack of parking available as shown by the vast number of cars parked on the kerbs all around the village. The plan does not take into account that Knebworth cannot sustain further residences as it is already at capacity. Whenever I try to book a Doctor's appointment, I am always forced to wait 3 or 4 weeks to be seen. If I need an emergency appointment, I am always kept waiting on the phone in a queue for long periods of time and am not always successful in obtaining an appointment.

There is simply no way that the proposed development can be sustained without a huge increase in infrastructure. The village would need another post office, supermarket, doctor's surgery, primary and possible secondary school (to avoid further congestion of more children commuting to school), more parking and more parks. I am not sure what, if any, measures can be taken to ease the congestion on the roads but certainly more frequent train services to and from London, Peterborough and Cambridge would be needed in order to ease overcrowding at Knebworth station.

I note that a new primary school is tentatively proposed but without the addition of all the other improvements to infrastructure that are needed, the plan clearly fails to adequately address these needs.

Is the Plan justified?

No.

There are far better alternatives to the proposed housing sites. Welwyn and Stevenage have far greater resources to support new homes. Building on the Green Belt around Knebworth will remove from the community a vital space for leisure and recreation, will make the village much less aesthetically pleasing and will stretch the village's resources too far. There is also a real danger of coalescence between Knebworth, Stevenage and Woolmer Green.

The evidence for the plan isn't reasonable or fair. As currently forecast, Knebworth is being developed at a much higher rate than other parts of North Hertfordshire. This isn't fair and it isn't sensible. There is no provision for the creation of local employment meaning there is inevitably going to be further congestion on the roads and trains as people commute to work.

The plan will bring no benefits to Knebworth. Knebworth is a large village already. Its facilities are at breaking point and the proposed plan will only stretch local services even further.

There are real threats to implementing plan. The plan is not sustainable. The roads in and around the village are already highly congested. I am always being held up along the High Street. My experience of the healthcare in the village is that it is almost impossible to get an appointment unless you can wait a month to be seen. There is also a real danger of coalescence between Knebworth, Stevenage and Woolmer Green.

Is the Plan effective?

The plan will not deliver a sustainable solution for Knebworth. It is likely to be rendered ineffective by the lack of infrastructure capacity.

Having lived in Knebworth for 31 years and raised a family, my wife and I are seriously concerned about the proposed additional housing for the following reasons.
1. Inadequate infrastructure
Living in London Road we already see serious traffic congestion outside our house during both morning and evening rush hours. Traffic pollution at these times is a serious health issue for both residents and pedestrians alike. Pupils walking to the local primary school are particulary at risk . Furthermore, traffic congestion is absolutely horrendous through Knebworth when the A1M is closed as it is fairly regularly.
Even during the day traffic congestion through Knebworth village can be terrible. Last Friday we had to take our daughter to Stevenage station to catch a London train for an important interview. It took over forty minutes instead of the10 minutes the journey should take because of congestion through the village. Not surprisingly she missed the train.
In our experience Knebworth GP Surgery has for some time seemed very stretched by the demands on it by the existing residents and it can be difficult to get timely appointments. This will clearly be made worse by the increase in population unless capacity is added.

2. Size of Knebworth and Green Belt Policy

As a family we moved to Knebworth largely because of its limited size and very real feel of being in the countryside. Knebworth residents generally refer to Knebworth as a village, and whilst large for a village, it still manages to retain that village community feel that is the essence of Knebworth. Inevitably that would be lost if the proposed increase in size goes ahead.
The development also threatens to undermine the whole concept of Green Belt designation which has been so important up til now in preventing the loss of countryside around towns and villages such as Knebworth.

At present both Knebworth and Woolmer Green have a strong sense of their own identity and strong community spirit as a result. Looking ahead one could envisage the loss of Green Belt land separating Woolmer Green, Knebworth and Stevenage which would totally change the character and open feel of the area.

We hope the above will be taken into account by the planning inspector when considering the proposed housing development.

* I recognize the need to provide affordable housing in North Herts, and would expect that an appropriate provision could be made within Knebworth. However, the current proposal to expand the village east and west by 31% is totally unrealistic. To do this would undermine the infrastructure of the village, which is already running at capacity with increasing problems, notably in terms of roads, traffic, access and safety concerns. To build on the scale and in the manner proposed, which is of great concern to current residents, would also not fulfil the needs and aspirations of the large number of people coming into the greatly expanded village. It would be unfair to newcomers and no benefit to Knebworth.
* The plan is being presented as development on four sites but I am reluctant to discuss these individually, though strong objections can be made to each one, since it is really one major site that surrounds the village.
* I do not see in the draft plan the justification for what is being proposed for Knebworth, other than the fact that the land is available. Beyond that, the following major problems that are not being addressed indicate a lack of consultation locally with those who live with them.
* The road system in the village is increasingly a problem because of through traffic, parking, restricted access, the three cross village bridges, one of them weight restricted, and, as I indicated, safety issues.
* The planned development involves two lanes, Deards End Lane and Gun Lane , both already too narrow for two-way traffic and set to become impassable with substantial building around them. The B-road through the village centre can barely cope at times now and any expansion, including that proposed for neighbouring Woolmer Green, will lead to a log jam and continuous corridor to the south with coalescence of the two villages.
* The local village school is full to capacity and it would be irresponsible to consider expansion on this scale with no proper provision for primary education other than an encouragement to developers to provide this.
* Much of the land for the proposed development is Green belt and/or conservation areas. There has to be a strong case made for utilising these and that has certainly not been made.
* There will not be any expansion of local employment and more likely a negative impact on the village economy. The plan to build on the Chas Lowe site effectively removes the concept of Knebworth as a 'working' village. Those moving into new houses in the village will be commuters and add greater dependence on roads and rail services.
* The major provision of new homes needs to be on sites where proper provision can be made to meet the needs of the new population. What we seem to have, despite the timescale, is a form of short-termism, bolting developments on to existing villages without adequate consideration of the impact, with that affecting Knebworth being particularly excessive. There needs to be a strategic policy for villages like this one which would likely include some expansion but a fraction of what is proposed here. In the meantime, I hope further consideration will be given urgently to alternative, larger and better sites for new housing such as that to the west of Stevenage.

* I recognize the need to provide affordable housing in North Herts, and would expect that an appropriate provision could be made within Knebworth. However, the current proposal to expand the village east and west by 31% is totally unrealistic. To do this would undermine the infrastructure of the village, which is already running at capacity with increasing problems, notably in terms of roads, traffic, access and safety concerns. To build on the scale and in the manner proposed, which is of great concern to current residents, would also not fulfil the needs and aspirations of the large number of people coming into the greatly expanded village. It would be unfair to newcomers and no benefit to Knebworth.
* The plan is being presented as development on four sites but I am reluctant to discuss these individually, though strong objections can be made to each one, since it is really one major site that surrounds the village.
* I do not see in the draft plan the justification for what is being proposed for Knebworth, other than the fact that the land is available. Beyond that, the following major problems that are not being addressed indicate a lack of consultation locally with those who live with them.
* The road system in the village is increasingly a problem because of through traffic, parking, restricted access, the three cross village bridges, one of them weight restricted, and, as I indicated, safety issues.
* The planned development involves two lanes, Deards End Lane and Gun Lane , both already too narrow for two-way traffic and set to become impassable with substantial building around them. The B-road through the village centre can barely cope at times now and any expansion, including that proposed for neighbouring Woolmer Green, will lead to a log jam and continuous corridor to the south with coalescence of the two villages.
* The local village school is full to capacity and it would be irresponsible to consider expansion on this scale with no proper provision for primary education other than an encouragement to developers to provide this.
* Much of the land for the proposed development is Green belt and/or conservation areas. There has to be a strong case made for utilising these and that has certainly not been made.
* There will not be any expansion of local employment and more likely a negative impact on the village economy. The plan to build on the Chas Lowe site effectively removes the concept of Knebworth as a 'working' village. Those moving into new houses in the village will be commuters and add greater dependence on roads and rail services.
* The major provision of new homes needs to be on sites where proper provision can be made to meet the needs of the new population. What we seem to have, despite the timescale, is a form of short-termism, bolting developments on to existing villages without adequate consideration of the impact, with that affecting Knebworth being particularly excessive. There needs to be a strategic policy for villages like this one which would likely include some expansion but a fraction of what is proposed here. In the meantime, I hope further consideration will be given urgently to alternative, larger and better sites for new housing such as that to the west of Stevenage.
* This is a disappointing plan and I hope that we shall see a better designed alternative that is more of a credit to the district.

I am writing to ask you to consider all the local arguments for not allowing any further development in/around Knebworth[...]

As a commuter village already we have considerable issues with parking and road safety on a daily basis [...] 2 years ago a parking permit scheme was set up along [Pondcroft Road] and Milestone Road to stop parking for the station everyday.
I agree this has worked in principal [...]for our roads, but has only pushed the issue further away from the station, not eradicated it. My point is with all the existing traffic parked and the fact the high street is terribly congested as it is, how do you think the daily life of us residents will be affected by builders lorries, earth moving trucks, deliveries and so on, for a considerable period of time.

It is already a 'take your life in your own hands' when crossing the High Street (even at pedestrian crossings), Pondcroft Road, Station approach, Milestone Road... as drivers use these to by pass the high street at major congested times - school pick up /drop off, 4.30-6pm etc etc.

I have experienced very close misses [...] Plus with cars parked along both sides you get a complete jam where no one will give way to anyone else - particularly annoying if you are trying to park outside your home.

I do not see that this will get any better while a considerable amount of site traffic will be making its way into and out of the village everyday for a prolonged period of time.
What about damage to the roads? The pot holes are already terrible - several in Pondcroft Road itself, and all the mud and debris that will be distributed by lorries etc? Who will be responsible for cleaning the roads and making sure they are safe for other road users? A huge amount of mud and debris can be very slippery and dangerous to drive on never mind pedestrians having to walk near.

When it rains, we already have huge problems with flooding in the High Street and along Pondcroft Road, the houses on the odd numbered side of the road have suffered with water ingress during heavy rain storms. The infrastructure of the old pipes and drainage systems can not cope. If you add to this all the mud and dirt from the building site, plus more 'solid surfaces' (ie: not grassland for water to be absorbed by), the consequences will be enormous. The old drainage system simply can not cope with what we already have, let alone more.

The services to the village, gas, water, sewerage etc, are all old and we frequently have to deal with blockages along Pondcroft Road. The old sewers could not cope with more being added on a daily basis - and who would be left to deal with any issues? As most of the work is being suggested for the land at the top of the village and out towards the Crematorium, I suggest the High Street and us closest in adjoining roads will yet again be forced to endure possibly hideous, health threatening circumstances, with the drains already unable to cope and the sewers also.

The school - a 'local' primary and nursery school - a very good school. But already at capacity. Each class has over 25 children in it.The school is massively over subscribed every year and children living in the village do not get their first choice as there are so many people applying.
Where would all the children from the new houses go to school?
And again secondary schools? All the schools in the local area are at capacity?

Is there funding for a new much larger primary school? Or another secondary or Middle school? How will all these children get to and from school? More cars, more buses? More congestion in our village.

And I feel that probably the largest issue is how will all the lorries get in and out? We are effectively cut off by the railway line. The bridges are too low for large cranes/lorries/earth moving trucks etc. How do you propose to get the vehicles in and out of the village? All the way through Codicote and Old Knebworth?

The estimates to widen the railway crossings when there was consultation for a secondary school to be built in the village, were massive, over 5 Million I recall - where will that be funded from? And both the rail crossings would have to be made larger.

The one crossing Gun Road is narrow and dangerous on a bend, the one by the station is wider but not high enough for large vehicles, and the one in Woolmer Green is even lower/narrower. And there is a weight limit on the bridge in Deards End Lane.

We live in a village. and even over the last 40 years many changes have happened and the village has grown, but the extensive development now being suggested would eradicate Knebworth as it is known. You many as well call us Stevenage South.

I would be interested in being kept informed with where the proposals are at, if that is possible.

I am writing to express my grave concerns regarding the plans for new homes to be built on greenbelt land around Knebworth, as explained in the current local neighbourhood plan.

I have lived at my current address in the village for some 14 years now, and prior to that, another 8 years at a different address in the village. Both my children have been through Knebworth Primary, and one has now been lucky enough to be in her 3rd year at Hitchin Girls School (this involves using the train service twice daily, a service that appears to be looking to be heading towards cuts itself) and the other is in his final year at Knebworth.

The village, in my opinion, is already facing over capacity in terms of traffic - you only have to go through the high street on a daily basis to witness the congestion caused by buses and cars. Whenever there is a problem on the A1, this becomes 3 times worse, as drivers divert through the village hoping to avoid the delays. As someone who takes my son to Baldock on a Friday evening for football training, there is regularly a queue from the edge of the village down to the Roebuck roundabout - again caused by people leaving the A1 at Welwyn.

So, traffic chaos would surely ensue should all these proposed new homes go ahead.

And what of the school - it is at full capacity already, and we then face the options for secondary schools with many parents not getting the choice they want for their child. Investment would be obligatory should the plans go ahead, to avoid a shortage of school place for primary and secondary schools.

And with the planned reduction in levels of service proposed by Govia Thamelsink on the railway, then the village faces further lapses in public transport at the exact time when you are looking to dramatically increase the number of residents.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the proposed plans, and feel that village life and the village itself would suffer very badly from these plans.

I would be more than happy to express my views in more detail if required.

I wish to object to the Local Plan 2011 - 2031; Green Belt. It is national policy to protect green belt yet the plan proposes loosing large areas around Knebworth. merging Woolmer Green and Stevenage to Knebworth. Losing the openess of the landscape. Traffic- I travel to Hertford daily. I had to give up using the 602 years ago because of congestion. I now leave Knebworth via London Road. I find on a regular basis I have to back track to Swangleys Lane to get to Datchworth. Using small country lanes not for commuter traffic. As the plan has no job growth how will people get to work with no increase to public transport., including trains. The traffic congestion generally in Knebworth is difficult. The high street is blocked solid when there is a bus and lorry trying to pass. Stevenage Road has a regular tail back from Knebworth to Roebuck area. Health - the doctors surgery is restrictive in it's capacity, impossible seeing a doctor within the week! I await your comments