KB1 Land at Deards End

It uses chunk of totally forgotten land. But a safe access to Park Lane in the South and Stevenage Road in the North is vital. So what is proposed?

I am a resident of Knebworth and am aware of certain developments in our village. Deards End and Gypsy Lane. I am a little concerned about. Housing developments of some 300 - 400 housing. The access from the village to these particular sites are under two bridges and over another bridge. All three bridges are of very narrow roadways plus pedestrian too, one side of road actually. To encourage more traffic to new housing development through under these bridges would be madness. It is at the moment a major hazard driving under these bridges plus not to say the pedestrian too, where mothers walk their children to the local school in London Road. An accident is waiting to happen!!!! Before even thinking of housing one needs to look at access to these developments from the Knebworth village.Plus another hazard is the high street of Knebworth, madness when the A1 has problems ie: accident. Then the traffic come though the high street, complete dreadlock many times !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your officers need to look into these issues before moving further with these housing plans !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Parish Council objects to this site principally because it is in the Green Belt , thus its development would be contrary to government policy as set out in the NPPF. North Hertfordshire District Council have not demonstrated that "exceptional circumstances" exist for the development of the site. This particular tract of Green Belt is important because it prevents the encroachment of Knebworth into the countryside to the west.

The site is located between the A1(M) and the western edge of Knebworth Village and is affected by traffic noise from the A1(M). The adjacent stretch of the A1(M), between Junction 6 and 7, is poorly-rated in the recent Highways England report (A1 East of England Strategic Study, June 2016). There are high levels of congestion, accidents, and noise. There is a proposal to create all-lane running on the motorway, by removing the hard shoulder, but Highways England consider that this may generate additional demand for use of the motorway and local roads. The impact of the A1 (M) on the Knebworth area, therefore, can only get worse. For the longer terms future, the building of housing on this site would impact on the future viability of any plan to widen the A1(M). Such a scheme cannot be ruled out, given that this section of the A1(M) is one of the most heavily-congested in the UK.

In the Local Plan, the Council suggest noise mitigation measures, but the noise levels are unlikely to drop and any mitigation measures would most likely reduce the size of the development area. The Green Belt designation of this area does constitute an effective noise buffer between the A1(M) and the village.

The amount of traffic generated by about 200 new dwellings would add considerably to the levels of traffic impacts on the B197. Congestion levels in the centre of the village would be exacerbated. There would also be pressures on the Deards Lane End Lane railway over-bridge, which is a Scheduled Ancient Monument. Increases in traffic are likely to have an adverse effect on the structural integrity of the bridge, which crosses the East Coast main railway line.

To the east of the site is the Deards End Conservation Area, the character of which would be severely affected by the proximity of so much new housing and the increased levels of traffic. With a potential link to Park Road, and north-south movement through the village limited by three narrow railway bridges, there is a clear risk that a "rat run" would be created by drivers seeking to access Stevenage from both KB1 and KB2. Deards End Lane is a narrow single track road with no pavements, giving rise to safety concerns for all road users as well as pedestrians. Complaints about the volume and speed of traffic have already been raised by local residents.

The infrastructure improvements suggested by the District Council are impracticable. Any road widening would have an adverse effect on the character of the Conservation Area, and would involve the loss of residents' gardens. For these reasons, the delivery of KB1 is highly questionable.

There is also concern about the potential effect on the Knebworth Woods SSSI, to the west of the proposed development, and an area of ancient woodland adjacent to the site. Both areas are protected habitats and the impact of the development would have to be assessed against the provisions of the NPPF (paragraphs 14, 113 and 117).

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.

Transport. The Deards Lane bridge is mentioned but not the main access on and off the site which is likely to be Park lane and down past the station under the, already unsatisfactory, rail bridge.
Deards End Lane is narrow, with no pavements and cannot be allowed to bear extra cut-through traffic to the North

See attachment

This is a Green Belt site. No real exceptional circumstances have been put forward for the removal of this status.
A quick glance at the site boundary suggests KB1 is the most densely populated of the 3 main sites. How does this relate to the sympathetic and lower density requirements in NHDCs notes in the context of the adjacent Deards End Lane Conservation Area?
KB1 and KB2 are both separated from the village High Street (B197) by the railway. There are 3 bridges, all of which have a dog-leg making it one vehicle at a time. The northerly one at Deards End Lane is a scheduled monument with a weight limit leading to a single-track lane through a Conservation Area. Passing is achieved by pulling into residents' private drives. The centre bridge has a height restriction and leads to a road limited to single-track stretches by daytime commuter parking.
The southerly bridge is height-limited and leads to residential roads, another Conservation Area and ultimately another single-track road. There is no viable access for construction traffic from the B197, and the extra car journeys from the proposed new dwellings would considerably increase the congestion into the village from the West.
The land at both KB1 and KB2 abut the A1(M) motorway. Aren't there government guidelines against this?
The B197 through Knebworth High Street parallels the A1(M) and because of daily congestion on the motorway, it is the preferred route into Stevenage for many drivers and often heavy vehicles as well. It is therefore always congested itself. We can't cope with more local traffic. No proper traffic management survey has been carried out prior to this proposal.
There are concerns about drainage and these have been mentioned in the proposals, particularly the capacity of the current sewerage arrangements. As for surface drainage, Knebworth, being relatively low-density, survives mostly or wholly on soakaways. The water from KB1, combined with the run-off from the motorway will need extensive new drainage or it will flood the railway cutting or the golf course, both of which are down slope from there. KB1 contains a spring, which doesn't seem to been mentioned either.
The proposals for Knebworth contain no commercial proposals to sustain local employment. In fact, the reverse, as KB3 is currently a busy local business, now destined for housing.
There are no firm proposals for Secondary education.
Many local services such as the local surgery are over-stretched.
The Local rail company are proposing reductions to the services to Knebworth. A high proportion of the new population on the proposed Knebworth sites will be commuters, as the buyers of these proposed properties won't be able to afford to work locally. This is bad.
It is reported that developers and speculators are holding enough land locally to satisfy our housing needs for many years. Surely it is better to develop this land instead while a New Town is planned. I am told that land has been proposed for this, and it is certainly supported by many local politicians, including our MP.

No real infrastructure investigation. The roads leading into and around Knebworth are constantly congested and the smaller roads used as rat runs.
Also there is more heavy traffic using the already over used bridges!
Any kind of development without the infrastructure already in place will bring Knebworth to a halt, full stop.It just doesn't have the capacity!!
The local employment will not benefit, as most of the residents will have to commute, therefore causing more chaos.

Then there is the greenbelt, local wildlife, conservation areas, etc.

The real solution is to build another Garden City development, as people have previously mentioned.

See attachment

1. The green belt surrounding Knebworth makes a significant contribution to protecting the space between the village and the surrounding villages and Stevenage. Removing it will likely mean there is a considerable danger of coalescence, destroying the identity of Knebworth. Developing KB1 will remove the green-belt buffer on the west of the Knebworth.
2. KB1 is next to the A1(M) - not only will people living in houses built here suffer from noise pollution, this section of the A1(M) is the most congested and polluted part of this motorway.
3. Access to KB1 is an issue. Deards End Land is a narrow road with a narrow railway bridge unsuitable for heavy traffic. The plan needs to include new, wider, access routes to KB1.
4. KB1 includes a conservation area. This will be damaged if this area is developed according to the current plan. Furthermore, there will likely be a negative impact on wildlife and Knebworth woods site of special scientific interest. The plan needs to include safeguards to preserve these areas.

I am worried about the local plan due to the following.

The site is marked as green belt and has a lot of wildlife interest that I regularly see in my garden. This included Green woodpeckers and albino squirrels. A development of the proposed size will impact the local wildlife which are currently in a conservation area.

Deards end lane is already a busy road I have a 2 year old son and there is no path to walk along and the road is too narrow to walk down. We have had numerous close calls with the number of cars using the cut through and the bridge at the end of lane can not support additional traffic.

I can hear the A1 in my garden and the pollution and noise impact would be huge for any new development residents.

Currently my garden floods in the winter. With an increase in concrete my garden and the proposed site would have major issues with removal of water and drainage.

I appreciate the need to for extra housing but having lived in the proposed area I believe has not thought through the potential impact to the above.

I object to this development as it's on Green Belt land and it would remove the buffer to the west of the village. The roads accessing the village are all very narrow with existing congestion already due to the large number of parked cars, with insufficient parking at the station for commuters who then park on the various side roads. This increases the risk of accidents occurring and more housing with extra traffic will only aggravate the situation. Current traffic levels have already lead to accidents at the narrow railway bridge by the station which is unsuitable for heavy traffic.

Along with proposals kb two kb three and kb four the proposals for kb one have not been well prepared or considered. These proposals fail any sustainability test. Knebworth existing infrastructure already struggles to meet existing demand as evidenced by extended delays in obtaining medical appointments at the local surgery, the lack of provision for additional education facilities beyond junior, no proposal for additional transport links, no addressing of access currently highly restricted due to the East Coast mainline railway which creates permanent bottlenecks. In addition kb one reduces greenbelt land, will adversely impact on conservation areas and will adversely affect already identified sites of special scientific interest and wildlife habitat.

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.
Deard's End Lane is already dangerous, and it can't be widened. It is unsuitable for heavy traffic and increased traffic will make it more dangerous and over crowded.
Effects on conservation area will be negative, due to loss of habitat and wildlife sites. Knebworth woods is an area of special scientific interest.
Pollution from A1 (M).
Strategy does not address village infrastructure/local economy. It is not effective. Increased housing will have impact on congestion in village. Access to village from this site under bridges - already too much traffic, narrow roads on pavements. Will be more dangerous.

1) Traffic Access via Knebworth, narrow railway bridge, or to A1M South via Rabley Heath.
2) Traffic in the morning rush hour to A1M South, already over congested leading us to divert through Rabley Heath which cannot cope. Morning Hour traffic Rush hour traffic at J6 congested and already diverting through the Old Welwyn high street. Only get worse
3) Loss of Green belt west of village.

There's insufficient infrastructure to support additional housing in this area; the schools right down to Oaklands are already oversubscribed; people wait years to get their children into groups such as the clubs, brownies and Knebworth football team. Also the field floods on a regular basis.

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 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.

*Green belt - these are not 'exceptional circumstances'. Continuing development is likely to cause significant, irreversible harm.
*Important conservation area will be permanently damaged.
*Excessive scale. Other developments in surrounding areas have not been taken into account.
* No strategy for provision of infrastructure needed for sustainability.
* Transport and highways - no provision for growing use.
* Village environment irretrievably damaged.

As a resident of the local area I strongly object to this proposed development site for residential houses or additional schools on the proposed KB1 plans. Firstly the site suggested (KB1) is green belt land and more importantly the additional houses and residence that these houses will home, will add to the already overloaded traffic issues in Knebworth and the surrounding areas, at peak times during the day (8:00am - 9:30am, 3:00pm - 3:30pm and 5:00pm - 6:00pm). The site KB1 (alone) will likely feed at least 200 more cars each day onto the B197 via either, Gun Lane/Station Road; Stockens Green/Gun Lane, Wych Elm Lane/Bridge Road or Deards End Land. All of which either pass under or over very narrow railway bridges which are not suitable for either two cars to pass each other, or for cars and pedestrians, as it is at the moment. A further 200 (or 400 more cars if the KB2 site is approved) will be a catastrophic amount of congestion, as well as a potential safety risk for pedestrians (especially between 8:15am - 9:00am & 3:00pm- 3:45pm), when a lot of families are walking to and from school. Additionally, we will see more cars using Pondscroft Road as a bypass to the High Street. This road is already a risk to pedestrians, as the road is narrow due to cars parking on both sides of the Road. The knock on effect of additional traffic will also drastically affect neighbouring villages such as Woolmer Green and Oakland. From 7:30am in the morning these villages already see backed up traffic to the A1 on a regular occurrence. Aside from the severe issues additional cars will cause the infrastructure of the village is already at capacity with schooling and doctor's surgery. Any additional commuters using the Knebworth railway station will also be an issue, as parking at the station is at a premium, with nearby residential roads already overloaded with parked cars. It would seem clear that none of these issues have been taken into consideration when proposing KB1 as a potential site for additional housing.

We are concerned about the potential extra volume of traffic travelling through Park Lane, where Pre-school is situated as a result of this build. This is an already busy road and cars tend to use it as a short cut in and out of the village.
These extra 200 houses will have an impact on us and the other education providers in the village. We already have an 18 month waiting list and other providers would be in a similar position. Young families moving into the village may find that there is insufficient early years provision for their needs.

Removal of green belt buffer to the village of Knebworth

Increased noise and pollution from A1(M)

Traffic congestion through narrow railway bridges and impact to wider traffic congestion in and around the village

Viability of the land given flooding issues associated with large areas of proposed land.

Housing for housing sake is not planning policy. Incremental additional housing is not fulfilling the amenity needs and joined up thinking needed to provide long term sustainable development. The proposals are simply box ticking to hit housing targets having no regard for the wider implications and planning needs or support.

The proposal is unsound for the following reasons
There has been no response from the Council regarding the traffic congestion that would be caused by such large scale development.
Similarly no consideration has been given to the access to construction traffic via small lanes and over a narrow railway bridge.
There is significant risk of damage or destruction of wildlife sites on the adjacent site of special scientific interest.
When taken into consideration with the proposed further construction in Woolmer Green there will be removal of the Green Belt buffer between the villages.

The proposal to move Green Belt boundaries from their current long established position solely because there is an equally or more defensible location elsewhere is contrary to national Green Belt policy. The availability of land, offered to meet a perceived housing need, is not an exceptional circumstance, and is not justified. The removal of Green Belt status from the land affected would be likely to cause significant harm to the Green Belt and its purposes, and requires fuller explanation and justification in the Local Plan.

Area couldn't take increased traffic congestion as Deards end lane is already too narrow for cars to pass and very poor visibility on railway bridge.
Also Traffic in the Morning & Evening rush hour to A1M South, already over congested leading commuters to divert through Rabley Heath which cannot cope. Morning Hour traffic Rush hour traffic at J6 congested and already diverting through the Old Welwyn high street. Only get worse

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

Furthermore, KB1 will have a significant negative impact on the adjacent Conservation Area of Deards End Lane. This development ( KB1) is also adjacent to a SSSI and important wildlife habitats. Loss of countryside and open landscape will have a hugely detrimental effect. Increased traffic and insensitive development (including loss of fields, hedgerow and woodland) will reduce the environmental and cultural value of this Conservation Area.

- KB1 and KB2 sites are sandwiched between A1M and the East Coast Mainline, access to the sites are limited. The road infrastructure is insufficient. Deards End Lane is a country lane only wide enough for two non commercial vehiclesto pass along part of its length. The bridge over the East Coast Mainline is also very narrow. Access to the B197 via Park Lane/Station Road is under a narrow rail bridge with a pathway used by people to get to the station. The path is only wide enough for one person for most of its length and to pass someone it is necessary to step into the road which is dangerous. Increased traffic =increased danger.
- Impacts on the character of Deards End Conservation Area .
- Site is close to A1M subject to noise and pollution.

This site with a proposal for 227 dwellings is the most sensitive for development as it is an area of great landscape value and has the highest point in Knebworth village at the Black Pits pond. The NHDC Land Sensitivity and Capacity Study Report - Planning Policy and Projects, November 2006 identified only three Knebworth sites with low sensitivity and high capacity. In each of the three cases the report states "these sites have been appraised as being able to accommodate new housing development without significant effects on their character or the surrounding landscape." KB1 is not one of these sites.

The NHDC Land Allocations - Additional Suggested Sites July, 2009 highlighted the site's weaknesses as:

i. Green field site as grade 3 agricultural land

ii. Adjoins a conservation area

iii. Site is groundwater source protection zone 2

iv. Site is located next to the A1M

v. Identified constraints on utilities and capacity of primary school

Council's weakness iv above has recently been reinforced by the Department for Transport in their A1 East of England strategic study: interim report of August 2016 which concluded, inter alia, that parts of the A1 are located unacceptably close to residential locations, causing unpleasant environmental conditions for local residents. It is hard to understand how moving Knebworth closer to the A1(M) is consistent with this very recent government finding.

The site has a mature hedge and tree line running north to south across the high point abounds with wildlife. In summary the site has the capacity for new dwellings but no other attributes and would be a highly visible ugly 'carbuncle' between the conservation area and the A1M.

Contrary to national planning policy (para 14, footnote 9 of NPPF). No justification for removal of Green Belt. No evidence of any affordable housing. No constructive plan for addressing infrastructure issues: transport. Deards End Lane currently dangerous to navigate as it is. Railway Bridge narrow and has weight restrictions.