KB1 Land at Deards End

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.

I object to the North Hertfordshire District Council Local Plan 2011-2031 with respect to the proposed submission relating to Knebworth. I do not consider the plan to be sound; it is not positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy.
The proposed local plan shows a distinct lack of strategic planning for Knebworth; pieces of land have been identified for development in isolation and no account has been taken of the cumulative impact on the existing village or its infrastructure. A piecemeal approach has been taken and neither the best interests of the village nor its ability to cope with the large proposed increase in dwellings have been taken into account.
The proposed 31% increase in dwellings is made without any provision to improve the roads, parking, social amenities or public services.
The B197 is already heavily congested every day at peak times and this is exacerbated and extended to other times of day when there are problems on the A1. I drive south from Knebworth every day for work and it regularly takes 30 minutes to drive about 3 miles both out of the village in the morning and back in at night. In addition to this, there is regularly a traffic jam leaving the village at the north end from Deards End lane towards Stevenage which seems to be caused by the traffic lights at the Broadwater Tesco store. It can take 20 minutes to drive from the northern boundary of Knebworth to the Roebuck. With the exception of Sundays, there is congestion on the High Street at all times of day and often in the evening. The current infrastructure is struggling to cope now and will not cope with a 31% increase in dwellings.
Given that there are no plans for additional employment in the immediate vicinity, all new householders will be commuters, putting additional strain on road, rail and parking. There are currently plans to actually reduce train services to Knebworth with the village losing the fast trains to London. There will be more passengers and less trains on an already busy route. Parking near the station is already an issue; causing tensions between residents and commuters.
NHDC is planning to build on greenbelt but their interpretation of "exceptional circumstances" is against Government policies. Development of sites KB1, KB2 and KB4 would result in a loss of productive agricultural land.
Site KB4 has restricted access; neither Swangley's Lane, Old Lane nor Watton Road is suitable for construction traffic. St Martin's Road is a private road and would be in danger of becoming a "rat run" and used for parking. There is an alternative site on land west of the A1(M) which has been under discussion since the 1950s but no progress has been made due to access issues. The access to site KB4 is no better than the access to this site.
The proposed local plan would result in a loss of commerce in the village with the Chas Lowe site being used for housing. This is a prime commercial site in the centre of the village and should not be reallocated to housing.
There are currently proposals for the construction of a new surgery to replace the existing one. This is not additional capacity. A 31% increase in dwellings will require additional capacity however there is no expansion capacity built into the surgery plan whatsoever either in terms of the service it will provide or parking for the facility.
The proposed Local Development Plan will have a detrimental impact on the village of Knebworth and will not enhance the village in any way. Bolting on new developments of hundreds of homes on the edge of Knebworth is not a solution to the need for homes. It will erode its boundaries with neighbouring settlements and the village will lose its separate identity. Knebworth is not the most appropriate location for an additional 663 homes. There is an alternative site which would be better suited to the proposed to the west of Stevenage.
NHDC have not worked with neighbouring local authorities but have developed local plans in isolation rather than working together to provide the best solution to housing needs in the area.
Hertfordshire is a rural county and it is vital that space between towns and villages is protected in line with Government policy to maintain the identity of villages, in this case Knebworth.
I would ask that the proposed local plan is scrapped and a more positive plan developed in co-operation with neighbouring authorities to best meet the housing needs of the area in a way which enhances local communities.

Please see below my concerns with respect to your Local Plan 2011 - 2031 Proposed Submission Draft and in particular with regards to the village of Knebworth.

Re Section 2, 13, Communities, Knebworth:
Inadequate consideration has been applied with respect to selection of land for development in Knebworth in that:
1) It is predominantly land which is currently green belt and the use of green belt should only be considered in exceptional circumstances (as per your document). I have not seen any exceptional circumstances mentioned so struggle to understand why you are even thinking of requesting repurposing these plots of land.
2) Sites KB1 and KB2 are next to the A1M and with respect to this will have the problem of a) high noise and pollution levels next to residential properties b) no consideration of the pending widening of the A1M which is still on the plans for taking place c) extreme difficulty with large heavy construction vehicles attempting to access these sites and d) a school being developed next to the A1M on site KB2 which will cause safety concerns. Furthermore land which is currently under agricultural use which will be lost.
3) Site KB4 appears to be a very late addition to the plans and has accessibility issues for construction purposes and also will add a significant amount of traffic to roads which are narrow and already very busy. With Woolmer Green applying for turning green belt land (which is on the same side of the road as site KB4) into residential use then one sees the threat of land between the two sites being proposed for yet further development and with this the total loss of any separation with green land.
4) Site KB3 (centre of the village) appears to be predominantly for residential use. This means additional traffic and also pressure on local services (doctors, dentist...) and nothing in the plans that support bringing additional business development into Knebworth to help provide the opportunity of local employment to the increased population of people seeking employment.
5) The number of dwellings proposed has been increased from initial proposals and additionally no allowance/consideration has been taken into account with respect to land adjacent to the Odyssey Sports Club on which some 60+ residential properties have had planning approval? There is no justification for not including this development within the numbers for Knebworth.
6) Furthermore the repurposing of Green Belt land is contrary to Government policy and the proposed plans make no attempt to protect space between towns and villages in the area and this is significant to Knebworth in regard to Stevenage and Woolmer Green. Such plans, if approved, will erode the separate identity that Knebworth, as a village, has.

The addition of an excess of some 600+ residential properties in Knebworth has not really recognised the negative impact and issues which will arise:
1) The B197 was never built to accommodate such an increase in population and the village already suffers from significant traffic congestion and there is a shortfall in the centre of the village for parking for shoppers etc.
2) Areas of the village are difficult to access for large vehicles and there would be the necessity for such vehicles to attempt to gain access to planned sites and via one of the two railway bridges that exist and which are already danger points.
3) Lack of consideration for the local economy and nothing is proposed in respect to job creation or allocation of sites for commercial use. In fact the proposals show such land being removed with the planned development of site KB3.
4) Local NHS facilities will become more overstretched than they currently are - there is not even one full time NHS Dental provider in the village? Recognition needs to be given to the fact that Knebworth is a village and as such residents do need easy access to such NHS facilities - travelling to Stevenage , Welwyn Garden City or elsewhere is not going to be practical especially with Knebworth having an ageing population.
5) Building an additional, single form entry, junior school is neither cost effective from an operational perspective nor cost effective from a cost of build perspective. We currently have a very good two form entry Junior School in the village and this does operate cost effectively at present but with NHDC funding challenges it may well struggle in the not too distant future and especially with a second Junior School for NHDC to fund. I also understand that there are no monies available to fund the purchase of the land nor construction and setup of a new school and with this being the case one can only summise that the company that develop the facility on site KB2 will need to uplift the costs of each property that they develop and sell to cover such costs - something that I am sure they will not appreciate and especially with the cost of properties in Knebworth which are already at the higher end of the market. Unless there is a thoroughly considered and funded approach for this then it does not and will not stack up financially.
6) Additional traffic will occur, onto already highly used roads, by parents whose children attend school at the new site proposed in KB2. Such additional traffic will just add to the current overload and there are no alternative easy access points that would obviate such a position.
7) There does not appear to have been any consideration of the land that has already been secured and planning approved on the west of Stevenage. This site would provide for much more accommodation than Knebworth and other similar areas could provide and would also be able to provision commercial properties that would support and need additional employment which would be locally available.

See attachment

I have read the proposed plan in relation to Knebworth as a whole. There are four proposed development sites; two the east of the village and two to the west. Previous plans have not included KB4.
In general I consider the whole plan ill conceived and refer you to the letter in response to the plan from Mr Stephen McPartland, the MP for Stevenage. I concur with everything he says. For my own part, as a resident of Knebworth for 20 years I have the following specific comments:
1 Roads.
Knebworth is on the B197. It is a single carriageway road that is constantly busy in itself. During peak times it suffers massive traffic overload as motorists use it to avoid the A1(M). In addition, during peak times the traffic from the A602 into Stevenage that once used the Old Hertford Road is directed along the Watton Road into Knebworth as a route to the Roebuck roundabout in Stevenage. Watton Road is country lane, at some points single track, and at the village end is a residential road that is clogged up by cars using it to park for access to the Knebworth Station. At all times there is queuing to negotiate the residential section of Watton Road and at peak times it is an acute problem. With KB4 this road (the only viable eastern approach into the village) would basically be subject to an overwhelming problem for motorists and a nightmare for residents.
To the west, the road to the station has to negotiate a low bridge with what is virtually a single track (and already very busy) road with a very narrow and very busy pavement, which is only wide enough for one person. Mothers with children in buggies take big risks already when accessing that route.
The western access route from Codicote is the only other route to the station and into the village, It too is very narrow and passes through a residential area. Parked cars makes it a treacherous route.
Deard's End Lane at the northern end of the village provides a short cut to and from Stevenage/Codicote/Station. It is a very narrow,single track residential lane with no footpath at all. It is already overloaded and extremely dangerous for pedestrians.
The high street is a single carriageway road with constant parking either side. It is only just about possible for two standard cars to pass in opposite directions: as soon as there is a lorry (frequently) or a bus (every five minutes) long queues form and accidents occur.
In short, the road infrastructure is already inadequate, over used, and dangerous.
Railway Station
Knebworth is very popular and convenient for those commuting either to Stevenage and Hitchin (schools) and or London (working people). There is an acute shortage of parking at the station and in the village roads. The platforms are already very busy in peak times and never not busy. The trains are always standing room only from Hatfield onwards on the London-bound journeys at all times of day, and standing room only in peak times from Knebworth itself. It is consequently uncomfortable and potentially very dangerous. There have been major fatal accidents on the line at both Hatfield and Potters Bar. The station cannot manage an increase in passenger traffic as it stands. To make things worse, Thameslink/Great Northern are proposing as of 2017 to halve the number of trains to and from Knebworth. This is a potential disaster.
Coalescence
The proposed KB4 is potentially a planning disaster. Not only does it remove highly productive farmland, it reduces the already small gap between Knebworth and Stevenage. Moreover it removes Greenbelt in contravention to National and regional policy. I believe it is critical that Knebworth retains its integrity as a village and a creeping development removes even more of its independence. Access to that site is also catastrophic for the road infrastructure and could potentially reduce the economic balance of the farmland such that it is no longer viable. Farm traffic already struggles to access the farm and this will be exacerbated.
Schools
Knebworth Junior School could not cope with additional demand. Stevenage schools cannot provide the places that Knebworth children need. The proposed site for a suggested school is too close to the A1(M) for the health of children and the staff. There is also a flood risk in that area as I understand it.
Heatlhcare
The doctor's surgery is already unable to provide an adequate service because of unsatisfiable demand. The same is true of the dental practices. It will be no better with a potential move of site for the doctors' surgery. The existing site is almost certain to be developed for housing: which is not ideal for the reasons already stated.
I understand that a separate Strategic Policy should accompany and support a proposed site of more than 500 houses. That this has not been prepared is an error/omission at best and underhand at worst. If one were prepared, the key issues would need to be addressed and any sensible mind would conclude that development on most of the proposed sites are not sustainable. The site at KB1 and KB 2 are at least as restricted for access as KB4. The narrow lanes at every point of the village would simply be inadequate for the access required.

See attachment

See attached

See attachment

See attachment