KB2 Land off Gypsy Lane

I am sending this email of behalf of myself and my husband, to register our objections to the current proposals to build a minimum of 633 dwellings in Knebworth. As we understand matters the proposals are as follows:-

Site KB1 Land at Deards End - 200 dwellings
Site KB2 Land off Gypsy Lane - 184 dwellings
Site KB3 Chas Lowe Site, London Road - 14 dwellings
Site KB4 East of Knebworth - 200 dwellings

Knebworth currently has 2002 dwellings with a population (from the 2011 census) of 4496, using the same ratio the proposal would give a 35% increase in population, although we believe that to be a very conservative number as the population has grown since that census. In addition it is likely that there will be an average of 2 cars per dwelling thus increasing the number of residents cars by over 1200.

It is also relevant to consider this proposal in the context of the other proposed sites in neighbouring villages/towns which will impact significantly on the infrastructure in Knebworth, in particular the proposed developments on the Odyssey site and in the neighbouring villages of Woolmer Green, & Codicote.

I can confirm that my husband and I are residents of Knebworth, and have been for the last 30 years, we know the village and surrounding areas very well having also lived in Stevenage for nearly 20 years.

Our objections are as follows:

1. Assessment of Need - We question the accuracy of the assessment of housing needs for the future, population forecasts have fluctuated and the impact of Brexit resulting in less immigration has not been taken into account. We ask that the current forecasts are revisited.
2. Infrastructure - the current proposal does not provide any strategic policy for the proposed expansion, yet the Local Plan provides that there should be a Strategic Policy for each Strategic Housing Site, a Strategic Housing Site is defined as a site of 500 homes or more. The proposal provides for a collective total of 663 homes and will have a massive impact on the current infrastructure which cannot cope with the present needs, if this proposal is to progress it must have a Strategic Policy covering all 4 sites dealing with transport, parking, sewerage, education, jobs, & health care.
Railway - Knebworth is served by a railway service it is a very busy commuter transport link between London and Cambridge, the station serves all surrounding villages, and South Stevenage. During rush hour the platforms are overcrowded to the point of being dangerous. There is inadequate parking at the station to accommodate commuters, they therefore seek parking in non-restricted streets around the village, which simply creates a new problem in a different location, the village cannot cope with an increase to the current numbers. The increase in the commuter population with not only come from the additional dwellings that are proposed in Knebworth but also from the expansion in the surrounding villages and south Stevenage.
Road - The main access in and out of the village is via the B197, formerly known as The Great North Road, it runs north and south through the centre of the village and forms the high street. It is constantly congested, it is often not possible for 2 vehicles to pass side by side, buses and lorries have to wait until nothing is coming in the opposite direction. During rush hour traffic is at a standstill it can take 30 to 40 mins to travel through the High Street. Traffic is diverted from the Motorway (A1M) if there has been an incident or big event (erg. Festivals/concerts regularly held in the nearby Knebworth Park), this being a designated route. Congestion along this route is also compounded by the fact that the local school (mixed infants/juniors) is located in Swangleys Lane which is directly off one end of the high street. Swangleys Lane is a very narrow road with no pavement, which coupled with the current volume of traffic presents a high safety risk for pedestrians. The other roads in Knebworth are minor street roads some are only single lane, all have residents and commuter cars parking on the road way. The village is divided by the railway line, vehicular and pedestrian access from one side to the other is via narrow bridges which only provide for single file traffic, and also have height restrictions. The bridge at the station end of the village is the route taken by commuters, it only has a narrow path on one side, on which you have to walk in single file, it presents as a high risk for the current volume of pedestrians. An increase to road and pedestrian traffic will increase the risk to unacceptable levels.
Sewerage/drainage - The existing sewerage and drainage infrastructure is not sufficient for the current level of use, many parts of Knebworth suffer from surface water flooding, an example is St Martin's Road which is a private un-adopted road with no foot path on either side but which is likely to be a possible access route for the proposed KB4 development, this suffers from surface water flooding, and the sewage run is constantly getting blocked, feeding another 200 dwellings into this old system is simply not sustainable. It should be noted that the field forming part of the KB4 site that is parallel to St Martin's road is one of the lowest points in the village to which water flows, it together with Old Lane the single track road that runs adjacent to is are regularly flooded.
Education - There is a mixed infants/junior school as described above, it is over-subscribed year on year. Whilst a site is identified for a school there is no certainty it will be built either at all or at the same time as other development, increasing the population further without appropriate education provision leaves parents no option but to school children outside the village, leading to social detachment from village life, and added congestion on the roads/trains to and from Knebworth as well as impacting on the location where they travel to. There is no mention of a secondary school provision.
Jobs - there is no plan in the proposal to create jobs, this means that the proposed housing will increase the commuter population which has the impact as set out above. There is no commercial/retail allocation, and indeed the proposal for Site KB3 is for a change of use replacing a current retail outlet and local employer entirely with dwellings. If the village is to be expanded a proper plan to incorporate commercial/retail growth is essential if the village is to maintain its character and serve its population, if this starts to be eroded it is likely to be the beginning of the demise of Knebworth as a self-sufficient community.
Healthcare - The current GP and dental services. The GP practice is looking for a new site to serve the current population, the proposal they are submitting would not be adequate to accommodate a 35% population growth. 2 new Care Homes for the elderly have recently been opened which will add to the already overstretched service. There are 2 dental practices, only 1 takes NHS patients and their intake is at its limit.
3. Green Belt - Sites KB!, KB2, and KB4 are all green belt land around Knebworth. We oppose development on these sites and as custodians of our Green Belt we would ask you to protect it. Green Belt is deemed to be the least acceptable land for development and if they have to be chosen then it should be sites that do least harm to the purpose of the Green Belt that are chosen first. There must be exceptional circumstances to remove Green Belt protection. We do not believe that exceptional circumstances exist, and further that there is another solution which would not have the unsustainable impact on Knebworth and the surrounding villages. One of the key purposes of the Green Belt is to prevent the coalescence between neighbouring conurbations, should the proposal proceed the impact will start to merge housing developments between Stevenage and Welwyn/Hatfield Councils. Stevenage Borough Council stated in their June 2015 Local Plan housing consultation that KB1 and KB4 were a significant contribution for Green Belt purposes. There are other sites which are rated as only having a moderate contribution which are not being considered. The KB4 site in particular is the only open space between Knebworth and Stevenage on the East side of the village, these sites are fundamentally important and key to preserving the distinct community of Knebworth, preventing the coalescence of settlements, sites that narrow the strategic gap between Knebworth and Stevenage and Knebworth and the neighbouring villages should be protected at all costs, this is a view not only held by the residents of Knebworth but also by the residents of Stevenage and the neighbouring villages.
4. The Alternative - In our view the better plan would be to build on the site that has already been set aside on the west of Stevenage, this site will accommodate in excess of 3000 dwellings, work had already commenced but has been parked. The plan should be resurrected, were it to proceed, it will meet the bulk of the housing needs currently identified, and will only require a small number of houses to be accommodated elsewhere. Logistically the development can progress without causing health and safety risks to existing residents, and a good, modern, infrastructure can be incorporated to ensure building to a good and efficient level.
5. Procedural Compliance - Finally I would like to bring to your attention the fact that the KB4 site has not previously been identified in the Local Plan as a preferred site for development, therefore due process has not been followed, by including it at this late stage insufficient time has been allowed for consideration and comment.

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

I would like to put forward the following comments for consideration by the Planning Inspector.

Knebworth has already grown massively over the past 40 years with Green Belt being taken and used for housing (hundreds of new dwellings in the Rialto estate during the 1980s and the Wimpey estate during the late 1970s), plus more recent housing developments on brownfield sites within the village. All this without any increase in infrastructure or facilities to date. Knebworth is currently at breaking point and cannot sustain any further large housing schemes. All facilities within the village are stretched beyond their limit. The school is oversubscribed and the health providers over capacity. The village cannot sustain the proposed 31% increase in housing and the loss of Green Belt around the entire village is against Government policy of protecting space around villages to maintain a separate identity and will definitely not support the character of Knebworth as it is. So living conditions will not be sustained for current residents.

Traffic in Knebworth has a long history of being a disaster. The A1(M) was built as a bypass around Knebworth. However, the congested B197 continued to be very busy with local traffic and previous plans to widen the A1(M) to alleviate the problem were abandoned. So the existence of the traffic issues in and around Knebworth have been known for years, but the issue has never been properly addressed and the B197 is busy, almost continuously. This is made worse whenever there is a problem on the A1(M) and all traffic comes through the village centre. Often there is complete gridlock.

All proposed developments in Knebworth and north of Knebworth along the A1(M) would have an impact on local roads. While the plan to use the hard shoulder of the A1(M) between junctions 6 and 8 may help current traffic flow a little, with the proposal to have over 14,000 new dwellings in North Hertfordshire, this is nowhere near enough. The volume of traffic and importance of the A1(M) to Knebworth should not be underestimated. The current two lane section and the route south should be widened to four lanes before any house building work commences. Also, the plan to widen the Welwyn viaduct to eliminate the bottle neck for trains there should be revisited. There is currently often standing room only on commuter trains from very early in the morning. The rail infrastructure in the area needs vast investment and parking provision for Knebworth train commuters should be increased to sustain even the status quo.

Local residents are often unable to even get out of side roads to join the main road. Any increase in the volume of commuter or social traffic due to an increase in population can only make these situations more likely and last longer. This is not in line with the sustainable journeys to services and facilities desired in the Preferred Options Consultation Paper.

The new houses are likely to be bought by workers employed elsewhere and add to the current traffic and parking problems. The proposals for Knebworth will increase pressure on the infrastructure. The side roads of Knebworth are divided by three bridges. All these are narrow with very narrow footpaths. In addition, leaving Knebworth along the B197 towards Welwyn Garden City the road layout has recently changed to widen the footpaths and narrow down the road, bus stops are opposite each other and buses stopping there halt traffic completely from time to time. Shortly after this, there is another narrow bridge. Two of the bridges in the centre of Knebworth have electrical substations next to them and are therefore unlikely to be able to be widened.

Previous developments were supposed to have a certain housing density and provide multiple accesses to and from the estates, but this did not happen. There is only one access to each large estate and the density of the housing built was higher than that agreed.

Parking is another major issue. Knebworth lacks sufficient parking even for current requirements let alone additional needs. Roads around the station area have commuter cars parked from 5a.m. during the week. Actions to relieve parking close to the station only served to push the problems to residential roads slightly further away. Knebworth station is not only used by Knebworth residents, but also residents of Codicote, Woolmer Green, Datchworth, Bragbury End and all other local rural settlements. The trains are packed every day.

It is true that limited parking is allowed in the village centre, but this is vital to keep the local businesses going. If short term parking was not allowed, customers would be driving straight through to the nearest supermarket and local traders would not be able to sustain their business. There has not been any provision within the NHDC proposal for increasing or improving local trade, retail or commercial. This adds to Knebworth becoming a dormitory village, so not even local trading can be sustained.

I believe that previous housing development proposals have been discounted due to the constraints in the infrastructure of connecting to the Rye Meads Sewage Works which services Knebworth sewage and that this is still a relevant limitation.

The allocation of 31% increase in housing for Knebworth does not seem justified as there is a large plot of land to the West of Stevenage, reserved by NHDC for housing development. It would seem more logical to use that land, with direct access to the A1(M), for housing without destroying the sustainability of Knebworth and other North Hertfordshire villages. Future planning should then be directed towards a completely new town or garden city type settlement, with infrastructure put in place before house-building begins. Currently proposals seem to be directed towards total coalescence along the B197, or with Stevenage, neither of which would be a good outcome.

All these issues, which would impact enormously on the quality of life of Knebworth residents, have been raised in previous suggested developments. There have been local meetings with planning officers attending to hear residents' concerns, but their concerns do not seem to have been addressed. In fact, quite the opposite, this latest proposal is much, much bigger than anything previously suggested, especially as none of the infrastructure problems have been solved.

KB1
This site is currently in the Green Belt, government policy saying that housing does not justify going into the Green Belt, makes this site unsuitable. The narrow bridge giving access to this site is unsuitable for heavy traffic and would damage the character of the Deards End Conservation Area. It is close to the motorway and therefore there are risks of pollution and traffic noise.

KB2
This site is currently in the Green Belt, government policy saying that housing does not justify going into the Green Belt, makes this site unsuitable. The narrow bridge giving access to this site is unsuitable for heavy traffic and would damage the character of the Stockens Green Conservation Area. It is close to the motorway and therefore there are risks of pollution and traffic noise.

KB3
Although vehicles going in and out of this site can currently be a traffic problem, it is a large employment site. It brings outside customers into Knebworth, who then use other facilities such as cafes and shops within the village. Change of use here, without commercial proposals, could reduce the sustainability of village trading. In the past, there have also been issues in the main road due to flooding.

KB4
This site is currently in the Green Belt, government policy saying that housing does not justify going into the Green Belt, makes this site unsuitable. Building on this site creates a danger of coalescence with Stevenage destroying the whole character of Knebworth village. It is currently productive agricultural land and an area of open landscape viewed from the village. There have been flooding problems on this land over many years, mainly due to poor drainage and a high water table. Hard standing will surely increase flooding problems.

Legally Compliant - No
I believe this does not comply with the regulations as this is the first time KB4 has been included in the Plan, so we have not had a reasonable amount of time to consider it.

Sound -
Positively prepared - No
I do not believe the infrastructure requirements for this new amount of development can be met because of the major unresolved problems in Knebworth, existing for donkey's years. These are chiefly the inadequate roads (including 3 dangerous railway bridges), traffic, parking, as well as poor medical facilities (NB the long-awaited current plans for rebuilding a new doctors' surgery, along with pharmacy and library, were designed to accommodate current needs only), and the known drainage/flooding issues. The main arterial roads in Knebworth, namely Stevenage/London Road (B197), and Watton Road/Station Road/Park Lane, come to a standstill twice a day, and Swangley's Lane (a narrow country lane without footpath beyond the school) jams twice a day at school times. The High Street, with vital parking on both sides, can scarcely allow two cars to pass, and buses and trucks have to wait, sometimes for 10 minutes or more, until someone at the far end selflessly decides not to enter the fray. This road cannot be widened, like many others in Knebworth. Swangley's Lane for example is narrow, and the lack of footpath means it is dangerous for children going to and from school. Also residents cannot safely back out into the road when cars are parked outside their drive, as without the vision of the road a footpath gives, drivers are blind to oncoming traffic which then travels down effectively a single lane. A guest of mine attempting to back out recently had his car virtually written off by a passing car, and dangerous incidents happen frequently. Yet this is yards from where the plan will site a new crossroad/roundabout to service the southern KB4 development.
Flooding is frequent in many places, including east of Knebworth, exacerbated by poor drainage - another major problem for any new development.

Justified - No
Effective - No
The plans are to increase Knebworth housing by 31%. Will the infrastructure also effectively increase by a third? It seems unlikely,
but if it does not the plan seems unworkable.
More specifically, if the plan is implemented as it stands this village, having accommodated considerable development over the years, will have finally overstretched its limitations. Chief among these is the problem of access via the High Street bottleneck, and the dangerous narrowness of the three railway tunnels/bridge, which appear to be insuperable problems. This in itself would make the plan unworkable.

We understand that the question of a new town/settlement after 2031 has been considered. Why is it not being considered now? With all the current problems of expansion of existing built up areas, the urgency of this would seem a no-brainer, and would help retain the semi-rural character of the North Herts area, especially our already over-populated southern section.

Consistent with national policy - No
The Green Belt - while this is now allowed to be eroded, we should still be aware of its aims and strive to keep these intact wherever possible.
One is to retain the rural character of villages. Despite considerable development in recent decades Knebworth, though now a large village, still manages to retain much of its rural character, for example its narrow lanes without footpaths, which traffic somehow manages overall to accommodate, e.g. Swangley's Lane, Old Lane, Deards End Lane. These will surely be rationalised into anonymous straightened and paved modern roads given the inevitable increase of traffic.
Another is to avoid merging with neighbouring towns and villages. However the new plans give the go-ahead to the real possibility of Knebworth coalescing with Stevenage, a purpose-built town with a totally different living environment. This is surely not justified.

Complies with the duty to cooperate - No
I don't believe the local plan fulfils the duty of cooperation to give Knebworth residents living in KB4 , especially those having been here for well over 40 years as I have, such a short time to make considered representations about the plan about to be decided.
Secondly, I don't think it is reasonable cooperation to expect one village, Knebworth, which has already accepted considerable expansion over the years, to accept such an additional proportion (31%) of new development - and probably unreasonably disproportionate to what has been allocated elsewhere.

My family and I wish to voice our concerns over the scale of house building proposed for Knebworth and the lack of infrastructure to support it.

Our house backs on to Gypsy Lane and year on year with have seen an increase in the traffic and noise in the Lane; if a problem occurs on the A1M it becomes a 'rat-run' short-cut to by-pass the village which in turn becomes clogged. This situation happens at least once a month and any increase in dwellings would exacerbate the problem.

Since the traffic lights at Tesco have been installed traffic in constantly backed up the hill to Knebworth making the journey into Stevenage impossible at certain times of the day which in turn affects whether or not we take the journey and our lifestyle choices. An increase in dwellings would again exacerbate this.

The village is in a constant state of traffic stagnation at certain times of the day and increasing the population would only affect this further. Drainage is also a very real problem in our immediate area.

Finally our Gypsy Lane estate would effectively be marooned between two small roads which would become clogged as the residents in the houses built around us would need to get off their estates.

It beggars belief that this number of houses are being considered and that the lives of those already in Knebworth are seemingly not worth a thought. We urge you to give further thoughts to these proposals otherwise life in Knebworth will become intolerable.

I don't agree with any of the plans for development on the planned four sites:
Site KB1 Land at Deards End (200 dwellings)
Site KB2 Land off Gypsy Lane (184 dwellings)
Site KB3 Chas Lowe Site, London Road (14 dwellings)
Site KB4 Land East of Knebworth (200 dwellings)
KB1, KB2 & KB4 are all Green Belt and are a threat to the openness of the landscape which surrounds the village. This will also affect walkers that enjoy our beautiful countryside. We've paid a higher cost to live in this area because of our surroundings.
Building on site KB3 is taking away employment. Also there is no planned extra employment within the area and what the planned extra properties to be built this only means more people around the village travelling by car, train or bus to work and school (every child in secondary school has to travel to school by either car, bus or train) at the busy peak time rush. These times currently around the village are really bad at present so this is only going to make matters a whole lot worse. They are currently no plans to add extra trains or buses. There is currently parking issues at the train station and around the village. As these plans are on the surrounding areas of Knebworth, this will only encourage people to use their vehicle to move about. Parking around the village centre is always very busy at it is. With no extra plans for more parking I don't understand how this will work?
I have a son that's registered blind and autistic that gets collected for School in a School bus. The driver is always complaining how busy Knebworth is at the moment. These Plans are only going to add to the stress to my son and others on the bus due to the amount of traffic that would be added.
I believe Knebworth already has the largest population of any village within Hertfordshire. Surly we shouldn't be adding to this?

Site KB1 Land at Deards End
Not ideal ground to build of being so near to the A1, traffic noise and pollution. You'll be removing Green Belt buffer to west of village. Also causing traffic congestion on narrow Deards End Lane and on narrow railway bridge which would be unsuitable for heavy traffic. This will also damage character of Deards End Conservation area. Impact to wildlife sites and Knebworth woods site of special scientific interest.
Site KB2: Land off Gypsy Lane
Not ideal ground to build as being so near to the A1, traffic noise and pollution this area of land isn't great for plans to build a primary school on also. You'll be removing Green Belt buffer to village. This will also damage character of Stockens Green Conservation area. There would also be a drainage issue of surface water flooding from A1. In the past these fields have suffered flooding in heavy downpours. Impact on traffic as not near to any current bus stop or the local train station will be a 10-15 minute walk which only encourages people to use their cars.
Site KB3 chas lowe site
As mentioned above removal of local employment (ideal area for local business)

Site KB4 Land East of Knebworth
This will only bring Stevenage and Knebworth together, not leaving a border between the two. Taking away the current open landscape. Loss of productive agricultural land. Impact on traffic to Watton road and Swangleys lane.

I hope you'll take my points into considering and understand the upset these plans would have on my family and the current residents of Knebworth.

I am writing regarding the proposed Village Plan for Knebworth.

My understanding is that the any proposed development must be compliant under four main headings:
*Is the Positive
*Is the Plan Justified
*Is the Plan Consistent With National Planning Policy
*Is the Plan Effective

There are currently four development sites proposed for Knebworth and it is my assertion that each fail to meet the requirements of the inspection process.

Knebworth is a small area and any issue that affects one area of proposed development will have the same impact across all sites. Also many objections can be lodged under one or more of the inspection process criteria: for this reason I am grouping my responses as a whole.

Consultation
For a plan to be adopted it is required to be developed with the interests of the village at its centre and with full consultation with the residents. The KB3 site is a relatively new addition to the development and there has been no formal discussion regarding it. This is the same as KB4 which has not been, as far as I am aware, discussed at any level with residents. This is a large area to be developed without full discussion and local input, especially as it is agricultural land that has never been developed.

Housing Targets
It is my understanding that the housing targets have increased during this process: there is a concern that the numbers of houses required by the plan are not actually required by the village. There is a view in the village that new houses will be for those moving from London who cannot afford London prices rather than for local people. Recent developments in the village have sold for £400k+, this is not affordable housing. I have neighbours that rent and who are desperate to buy but there is no affordable housing stock. What assurances are there that the plan is for local people to help build a community rather than create a larger commuter belt.

The current plan will increase the size of the village by 31%: to grow any area by one third seems excessive. There is a plan to build 3,100 homes in Stevenage West and 150 homes in Woolmer Green which do not seem to have been taken into account during the formulation of this plan. What is the justification for such a large increase in dwellings in a small area: is this sustainable and actually needed? Are there any figures that show that these houses are actually needed in Knebworth?

Infrastructure
It appears that Knebworth does not have a Strategic Policy in place: the reason being that one is only required if a development exceeds 500 houses. In essence, although there is not a proposal for one development of 500 houses, the total amount across the village is 663 which will have just the same impact as one major development. By not developing a Strategic Policy it is impossible to assess the impact on the village for transport , education and commerce: this seems to have been side stepped in the desire to build houses.

There is a major issue in the village: Drainage. I live in Orchard Way and the cul-de-sac regularly floods during periods of heavy rain. We have been told that this is because the land at KB2 gets saturated and fills the drains, the overflow then finds its way to lower ground and floods outside my house. If this field is to be built upon there will be nowhere for the water to go except to flood the lower areas more regularly: what provisions have been put in place for adequate drainage in the village. Will the provisions be implemented for the whole village or just for the development sites? If the problem is only fixed for the development sites it will impact on the rest of the village.

This leads onto a concern that more homes mean more water usage & sewage disposal and the capacity of the Rye Meads Sewage Treatment Works needs to be .carefully evaluated to ensure that it can process the increased effulense.

There are plans for a school in the village but it is not made clear if this is an additional school or if the current schools will be closed when it opens. This leads to further concerns: if the old school is closed are there plans for yet further development of homes on that site? Any future plans have not been disclosed in the proposed building figures. The traffic generated by a new school will impact on the morning & afternoon rush-hour. There are already queues out of Knebworth towards Stevenage of a morning and more cars will be added to this as parents try to drop children off and head off to work. The village is also gridlocked at school pick-up time: it has taken me 20 minutes to drive from Orchard Way the High Street in the past. There was a comment that parents would walk their children to school but a lot of parent use their cars as necessity. There is also a question of noise from a school: it will be in a residential area and children shouting & playing in a playground can be very disturbing, especially for these working at home. There doesn't seem to be any consideration for the increased traffic and the noise & pollution that will come with it.

Services
There is no provision in the plan for growth of the medical centre in Knebworth. At present there is a lead time of approx. 4 week for an appointment. 663 houses is at least 663 new patients to be treated at the surgery and there is not the capacity.

Having spoken to one of the doctors, it appears that house prices are a deterrent for recruiting GPs to the practice, plus doctors would prefer to work in London. It was admitted to me that they do not know how they will cope with the influx, especially as their budgets are being cut. As an example, I had a bad shoulder earlier this year but they were not able to refer me for an MRI: what will be cut next due to the demand from the extra patients.

The high street is a busy & has a good range of shops but it is very crowded. There is not enough parking for the current users and the road can be dangerous with cars trying to park and pass through the high street.

Greenbelt & Conservation
Knebworth is a village set in the Hertfordshire countryside: this countryside is being slowly eroded with various building projects taking place, plus the proposed developments. Knebworth is in danger of losing its identity as a village in its own right, instead blending into a suburb of Stevenage. The idea of the Greenbelt was to guarantee open spaces and to allow space between towns & villages. It could be claimed that the KB4 development is in breach of the National Planning Policy Framework that exists to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; stop towns merging into each other and safeguard against countryside encroachment.

There are several areas in the village that are designated as conservation areas. The extra traffic and the pollution it brings will have an impact on these areas. The pollution and extra people in the village will also impact on the natural wild life in the area: we often see roadkill and this will only get worse with extra cars. I also believe that the extra pollution will have an impact on the natural woods and greenery around the village.

Transport
Knebworth is a commuter village and it can be assumed that many people moving into the new developments will be commuters: the system cannot cope with an influx of train users. I have been commuting for 16 years and the trains have got worse year on year. They are always late, are over-crowded and now face the threat of cuts from the Govia Thameslink 2018 review.

Knebworth is limited in its train capacity due to the viaduct at Welwyn North: only one train each way at a time can pass through which causes a bottle neck and sets a finite number of trains that can cross it each day. There is no room for growth on the trains which means that more users (from other stations as well as Knebworth) will overload the system.

If 663 homes are built in the village then it is likely to lead to 663 cars: the roads cannot cope with this number of extra vehicles. They are not wide enough: many of the country lanes already struggle with the number & size of cars. Will the new homes have driveways or garages, and if so, how many? Will the development cater for all the extra cars or will they park where they can? The roads are already treated as a car park and the roads are clogged. Buses cannot always pass through the high street as there is not enough room with the parked cars which leads to delayed services and scratched cars.

There have been occasions when the emergency services have been unable to reach their destination due to the roads being blocked by parked cars.

The situation is made worse when there is a problem on the A1 as Knebworth is an overflow and alternate route for the motorway traffic. This includes all lorries and trucks that can hardly pass through with the parked cars.

Commerce
The plan, especially KB2 & KB4, will be building on agricultural land which will have an impact on farming jobs in the area. Not only will it reduce these jobs, there are no provisions in the plan to create any jobs of any type. The development of KB3 is again reducing employment opportunities in the village. This means that the village will be increasing residential with no commercial opportunities and people will need to commute to work.

I hope that my concerns will be taken into consideration during the consultation period: the village plan will have a huge impact on the people living in Knebworth and the future of the village.

I am writing to express my concern as to the proposed building of 663 houses in Knebworth.

Knebworth is a village surrounded by Green Belt land, and country lanes and narrow bridges. This land acts as a buffer and prevents the village becoming one long sprawl with Stevenage to the north and Woolmer Green to the south. Where this land is arable land then it should be retained for the growing of food.

Knebworth is already bursting at the seams re-utilities, doctors' surgery, school and use of railway . A huge issue is the traffic coming through the village on the B197 and when the local A1M is blocked .... a regular occurrence. The narrow lanes surrounding the village and the proposed building sites are constantly used as rat-runs to beat the traffic problem. It is well known that commuter parking is a huge problem with people driving in from Stevenage and the villages wanting to park before using the train station. NHDC know of the problems with parking and through traffic but have not been able to find a solution .

Site KB2 is not suitable for housing, let alone a new school. The site is very close to the A1M with its pollution , and also the land regularly floods into the nearby estate with water flowing off the motorway.

I hope that those making decisions about the proposed new houses first come to Knebworth and see for themselves just how inappropriate the plans are.

I write to register my objections to the proposed housing developments at Knebworth as suggested in the draft development plan from NHDC. Knebworth is a pleasant place to live - the addition of a further 600+ dwellings may change this permanently. My objections are mostly in the "soundness for North Herts", camp.

Parked vehicles in the roads surrounding the station and the high street currently prevents an even flow of traffic. This affects both traffic coming through the village and local people going about their business. Travel from my house in Deards End Lane to the A1 between 8.30 and 9.30 am can take as long as 40 minutes due to queuing traffic on a normal work day. If there is a problem on the A1M then this time can easily extend. Indeed, if the A1M is closed all traffic is routed through Knebworth and queues quickly build up at both ends of the High Street. Adding another 1000 local vehicles to this situation can only make it worse. KB1, KB2, KB3 and KB4 all affect this.

On the same track, vehicular access around the village is hampered by the physical barrier of the existing railway route, which effectively splits the village. The three bridges which provide the links were built in times when motor vehicles were rarities. They are ill suited to the size; numbers and frequency of the traffic they now must support. These "pinch points", will not cope with the additional traffic volumes that will result from the building of 600+ additional dwellings.

Access to the KB1 and KB2 developments is planned to be from the existing Park Lane route. This road is already congested, made difficult to pass by parked cars for the station and is used as a "rat run" by traffic which has chosen to avoid the congested High Street. In its current state, it will not cope with additional traffic to and from the 350+ new dwellings.

I have already mentioned the current parking problems in the village. One of the main contributors to this is commuter parking for the railway. As rail fare prices have increased and parking costs have increased at other nearby stations, the number of workers coming to Knebworth to commute by train has increased. This is not just in roads adjacent to the station as it now affects roads up to 20 minutes' walk away. Increasing the housing stock of the village by around 30% will only make this problem worse. Knebworth needs some official car parking areas, not new housing, but I imagine that there would be less money in that for the landowners.

Knebworth is in a slight physical valley and some parts of it have flooded on recent years with heavy rainfall. One area proposed for the new houses hosts lagoons to contain excessive water flow from the A1M. More "hard", surfaces in this area will speed up the movement of water to the village. On a wider point the new developments proposed at the sites KB1, KB2 and KB4 are all in areas around the edge of the village where surface water would naturally disperse. The proposed use of this land for housing will remove this and add further concrete/tarmac, placing more pressure on the existing drainage system. On the same topic, I believe that the sewage treatment infrastructure will need to have significant modification to support these new dwellings and the other additions on the route to the facility.

Although a junior school is planned for inclusion at the KB4 site I can see no other industry being attracted/planned for. This means no new source of employment and that all the people who come to Knebworth are expected to work somewhere else. The addition of so many new residents without any new form of employment will hasten the demise of the village by making it a dormitory town. This should not happen; it will accelerate the change of the character of the village.

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.
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.

I enclose my comments on the North Herts Plan (for Knebworth )-Paragraphs (13.183-13.202 of the local plan).

I object to the plans for Knebworth as outlined in the Local plan for reasons of Soundness.

The Green Belt policy serves 5 purposes
* to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
* to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
* to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
* to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
* to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land

These plans recommendation do neither of the above.

A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this are:
* buildings for agriculture and forestry;
* provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it;
* the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building;
* the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces;
* limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan; or
* limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.

And falls foul of the above exceptions

I also include General and Site(KB1-4) related observations and comments .

General: Knebworth is a natural conurbation existing between hills to the west, north and south East. All traffic radiates through the centre of Knebworth either down the north south conduit (B197) or the east west conduit via Watton road/Station road. At peak times 7-9 am, 4-6.30 pm these roads are very busy and congested leading to tailbacks on all roads. There is not enough provision or evidence of provision for infrastructure to cope with the increase in traffic caused by 600 new homes and not sure how any improvement can be achieved. It will be grid lock.
General :The plan talks about an inadequate car parking management policy in the high street. Car parking is allowed in the High street to make ease of access to shops but also to actually slow the traffic down. We don't want traffic hurtling through the village.
General: There is no provision in the plans for the increased rail usage and therefore additional parking capability required in Knebworth. Currently all roads local to the Station are rammed with commuter cars.This will only increase with the additional 600 homes in , the 150 in Woolmer Green and the 3100 west of Stevenage. Currently a lot of Stevenage people drive to the village in the morning so that they don't have to pay car parking at Stevenage station.
General: Knebworth is a large village. The proposed development will turn Knebworth into a small town but without the facilities of a small town. The village will lose its openness and valuable agricultural land will be lost.
General: The doctors surgery struggles to cope with local demand. It currently can take 2 weeks just to get regular appointment. This will be exasperated by the increase in the number of people. The latest planning application from the Surgery has been rejected by North Herts.
General: The proposed schooling provision has not been syndicated or agreed by County. The figures don't lie, 600 homes means 600 kids which means 20 classes of 30 ( Year 1-13) which means you need more than 1 form entry for the new primary school.
General: It is not clear how the through school site on KB4 is going to operate. Will it be in addition to the existing provision or replace the existing provision. What traffic increase has been taken into consideration in the infrastructure to cope with this new school or the traffic flow that will result. Particularly increased flow from Stevenage as a result.
General: Current educational policy states that there is a nearest to school policy when assessing prioritisation. It will be ironic that Bragbury end will be closer to the new through school on KB4 than the west of Knebworth , thus precluding those children from the west of Knebworth from places at this school.
General: There is no provision for additional local employment in the plan
General: There is no provision for additional sporting facilities in the plan.
General: There is no evidence of land being set aside within these development locations for leisure usage.
General: There are no hard facts on the amount of low cost housing that will be set aside.
General: There is no mitigation in the plan for the number of houses being built at nearby Woolmer Green(150) or the those being built West of Stevenage (3100).
General: There has been no consultation with the the village with regard to educational provision. Did the residents ask for an 'all through' school. What process had been followed to get that conclusion and where is the transparency to that process.
General: The plan cannot be sustained without major investment in infrastructure. I cannot see any evidence in the wider county budget for this.
General: What benefits does this plan bring to Knebworth-that has never been articulated. Where are the local needs reflected in the plan.
General: No Resource planning has been given to the additional levels of Policing and other essential services that these developments will bring. Will this plan plus others in adjoining towns and villages take this beyond was has currently be budgeted for of forecasted for.
General: What studies and modelling has been used to predict increase in road/rail usage and where is the transparency to those artefacts.
General: This plan removes huge swathes of green belt to the west and east of Knebworth. What other options have been considered and where is the transparency to that process.

KB3:The Chas Lowe site is a valuable employer in the village (in fact the largest employer).This employment is not being replaced.
KB3:This has badged as a Retail only site. This is ridiculous ..at very least it should be mixed. Thus providing residents with additional shop or even a location for the surgery. The unit on the east side of the high street is currently a small yard between 2 commercial units and the plan is showing residential development-this is ludicrous. Where are these new residents supposed to park a car ?

KB4:The due diligence on this site has not been undertaken. This option game late to the table and has not been given the same level of scrutiny as the other sites and equally not the same level of scrutiny by the community.
KB4: the proximity of the development to Stevenage increases coalescence between and urban area and a small village. This must be avoided at all costs as Knebworth will lose its identity.
KB4:Any development here will reduces the open landscape currently enjoyed by the village community
KB4: Any infrastructure that causes traffic to ingress/egress through Oakfields road/avenue into KB4 and out into Watton road will turn a quiet residential area into a rat run and a dangerous road for all users.
KB4:The land here is constantly farmed, with multiple crops rotations per year-This will be a valuable asset lost. A wide variety of birds use this area as nesting site- both local and migrational.
KB4:Swangles lane is a nightmare at school times, with one lane traffic movement only at peak times. The additional homes in this area will increase this issue.
KB4:Watton Road is regularly flooded both at the junction with the railway bridge near Bragbury end and halfway down Watton Road close to the junction with old lane. There have been many accidents along this road , with many cars ending up in adjacent fields. This development will increase this issue as run off will be exasperated.
KB4:This Is NO footpath provision along the busy Watton road beyond Bell close.
KB4: Damage to the look and feel of the Picton built houses and road vista in Oakfields Avenue/Road .
KB4:Any entrance to site KB4 from the junction of Oakfields ave/road will mean compulsory purchase of land from properties adjacent to that site. It would not be possible to get traffic in and out without doing so.
KB4:I have seen no evidence that suggest that County have agreed to the Schooling proposals.

KB2:Building up close to the A1(M) would seem unwise considering the noise and population from the road. Putting a school here contravenes planning law of not building a school within 150 metres of a major road (A1M). Better off developing existing school site.
KB2:I have seen no evidence that suggest that County have agreed to the Schooling proposals.
KB2:The green belt buffer will be removed by this development thus removing the open nature of this part of Knebworth.
KB2:Orchard Way suffers from flash flooding. This will be exasperated by this new development as water will have even less ways of dispersing.


KB1:The design of the Bridge @ Gypsy Lane and the narrowness of approach to it from both ends will become a major bottleneck because of the extra traffic that needs to go through it. Extra infrastructure needs to be factored into the cost of developing the bridge further to support this site.
KB1:Deards End lane in parts is suitable for single file traffic only. This road will have to be upgraded to support the extra traffic...and will have to involve compulsory purchase of land.
KB1:The closeness of this development close to the A1M raises issues on whether the pollution and noise generated by the A1M would be tolerable. Tests would have to be undertaken to understand emission levels.
KB1:This development will affect the look and feel of the conservation area in Deards end.

Design: Knebworth retains its rural garden village feel because many of the houses have boundaries formed of natural hedges rather than wooden fences .It would seem prudent that if this awful development went ahead that this design feature was enshrined in local covenants within the new development.
Design: Knebworth also benefits from its association with Lutyens , which is reflected in both local housing, the church and the golf club. It would be beneficial for those design concepts to be reflected in any new development.

Ref: Local Plan 2011 - 2013 Paragraphs 13.183 - 13.202
I would have liked to have filled in in your application form online but I had real trouble actually typing in the boxes. Most of the text was cut in half or the boxes disappeared when I tried to type. So please accept this email as my application.
According to the CPRE newsletter, Spring 2016, page 1, "Hertfordshire is currently the worst affected county in terms of potential loss of Green Belt to development. Over 41,000 new homes. The size of Watford."
In August 2013, the planning application for 3.600 new homes, west of Stevenage, was withdrawn as not required and in the wake of BREXIT, immigration is to be reduced. If either or both of these states are true do we still need so many new homes? Is this Local Plan already out of date?
I wish to draw your attention to the proposed housing development for the village of Knebworth. The Local Plan acknowledges the fact that Knebworth is a village describing it as a Category A village because of its size, employment availability and facilities. 663 new homes will increase the size of Knebworth by 31%. As I understand it, this is the largest percentage increase planned for any other town or village in Hertfordshire. It will change the character of the village completely. This increase will impact on the existing services and infrastructure that are already struggling to cope. This proposed development does not take into account the approved plans for 80 new homes on the northern border of the Knebworth parish, adjacent to Stevenage.
There is no strategy included in the Local Plan to make the planners and construction teams for all the site to work together for the bettering of infrastructure and transport opportunities.
I suggest that the NHDC planning department ensures that all empty properties are occupied before allowing the proposed development to take place eg. House in Gun Road, Knebworth that has never been occupied in over 20 years. (see attached photos)
The infrastructure for Knebworth is already woefully inadequate. Twice recently there has been bad flooding forcing people to leave their homes. There are pinch points in Watton Road (access to KB4), the high street (B197), three narrow rail bridges with height or weight restrictions and blind bends (access to KB2 & KB3) which all cause congestion and road rage. The station, doctors' surgery and the primary school are also struggling to cope.

TRANSPORT
GOVIA, the local rail operatives are reviewing the possibility of reducing the rail service at Knebworth. With increased housing both within Knebworth and surrounding villages e.g. Codicote, Woolmer Green, even more pressure will be put on the station and its environs.
The railway station in Knebworth has inadequate parking facilities but still draws commuters from surrounding towns and villages, as they park on the streets near the station, thus avoiding parking fees. However the problems have never been resolved and residents regularly have to put up with commuter aggression and dreadful parking across their driveways so that they can't use their own vehicles. This leads to residents parking their own cars on the road to stop the inconsiderate parking from the commuters, thus increasing congestion and road rage.
To compound the daily misery of Knebworth commuters, GOVIA, the current franchise holders of the London to Edinburgh line, is reviewing the timetable with the view of reducing the number of trains that will stop at Knebworth and stopping the fast trains altogether This mitigates one of the reasons for increasing housing in Knebworth.
The residents of Knebworth experience daily congestion on the B197, especially but not only at peak times, making tail backs from Knebworth to Stevenage and from Knebworth to the Clock roundabout at Welwyn.
The A1M motorway was originally built as a bypass to Knebworth and other communities. The stretch of motorway from J6 -7 is the worst along the whole of the A1M for accidents and congestion, due to two lane carriageways. This means that, as soon as there is a problem on the motorway (high volume, accidents etc.), the B197, through Knebworth becomes the bypass for the A1M. With increased housing this only become worse.
FLOODING
The field identified for the KB2 housing project is a designated surface water run off for the A1M motorway. Recently this water has been so deep that it went up the thighs of one person in waders (see attached photos) and has flooded homes in Orchard Way and Broom Grove, so there has been an inquiry into this problem. The new houses will exacerbate this problem.
In addition, the Rye Meads Sewage Plant, which acts for Knebworth is already at full capacity. So where will it all go?
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Although affordable housing would be an ideal dream, it has not proved to be a reality in Knebworth. Developers always state that affordable homes are not viable. In addition the affordable home provision was reduced in the Housing and Planning Act 2016.
GREEN BELT
As stated at the beginning of this letter Hertfordshire is currently the worst affected county in terms of potential loss of Green Belt. Green Belt was instigated to prevent the coalescence of communities. As such, Green Belt land should only be removed in exceptional circumstances. This proposed housing does not constitute 'exceptional circumstances'. (http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/policy/achieving-sustainable-development/delivering-sustainable-development/9-protecting-green-belt-land/)

CONSERVATION
There are two main conservation areas within Knebworth. These are already suffering as rat runs with the aim of trying to avoid Knebworth's congestion as well as suffering from commuter parking.
One of the three bridges is a scheduled ancient monument (KB1). This bridge is already taking a regular hammering from all kinds of traffic that use it as a cut through or following satnavs. Lorries have been see to be reversing back off this bridge onto the B197 as they can't negotiate the tight bends or are over the weight limit.
COALESCENCE
The sites highlighted for new homes, especially KB2 and KB4 will cause coalescence between Stevenage, Knebworth, Woolmer Green and Welwyn making the B197 a built up ribbon development corridor.
Green Belt land was originally designed to prevent communities from coalescing. The railway line that delineates the border between Knebworth and Stevenage has already been breached as planning has been granted for 80 new homes on the Knebworth side of the track.

KB1 and KB2
As stated under FLOODING this land is a collection point for surface run off water from fields and the A1M motorway. (see attached photos)
All new residential traffic will have to join the already heavy traffic using the conservation area of Stockens Green, culminating in trying to cross the railway by using the bridge to Gun Road. This bridge is narrow making traffic drive in the middle, and a blind spot to traffic coming from KB2, as there is a right angled bend into the bridge. Added to this, during winter months, drivers also have to contend with driving into low blinding winter sun. The bridge is only 14 feet high which will cause problems for construction traffic. (see attached photos)
Traffic could also use the bridge at Deards End Lane, which has a blind bend at both ends and is a scheduled ancient monument or the bridge in Station Road. The latter bridge has been hit so many times by lorries that there are now very large fluorescent signs warning lorry drivers about how low it is.
Due to the design of all three bridges, traffic is forced to use the middle of the road, making for single lane traffic, when either crossing the Deards End Lane bridge or going through the Gun Road and Station Road bridges.
KB3
This site is, at the moment, the site of Knebworth's principle employer. Soon this builders' yard will be closed, making jobs redundant, and will be replace with 14 new homes. This is prime commercial land that is being changed to housing. One of the major statements within the NHDC proposal was the maintenance and expansion of local businesses. Not only is there a loss of a commercial site in the centre of the village there are already issues with bottle necking traffic. Also surface water drainage is a problem on the high street.
In addition to losing these jobs, the doctors' surgery is to be amalgamated with the library on the library site. The library is to be downgraded to Tier 3, which means it will be run by volunteers only. A pharmacy is to be included. As we have two pharmacies on the High Street now, with a third proposed in the surgery, it is quite likely that at least one, if not both of the street pharmacies will close. So along with paid library staff, pharmacy employees may also lose their jobs. CPRE states that no evidence has been put forward to show that new employment opportunities have been established in the village to match the amount of proposed housing. We are losing employment opportunities and facilities at a time when they should not only be kept, but increased and developed if the new housing goes ahead.
KB4
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) principle states "the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside should be recognised while supporting thriving communities". This has clearly not been considered during the construction of the NHDC Local Plan. It also says planning should ensure the protection of the countryside and agricultural land.
CPRE Newsletter Spring 2015 states, " Planning Authorities' duty is to give weight to the protection of the best and most versatile agricultural land". This is prime agricultural land. Planning permission was withdrawn in 2016, by the Secretary of State, for a solar farm, due to the high quality agricultural land and the outstanding beauty of the area.
During drop off / pick up times it is dangerous for carers and the children outside the local primary school, due to carers parking on bends in narrow Swangley's Lane. This has been highlighted by a local resident at a Parish Council meeting as an accident waiting to happen. Increased residential traffic, and prior to that, builders' traffic will only exacerbate the problem and the danger.
KB4 will bring coalescence between Stevenage and Knebworth at the Broadwater side of Stevenage and also, potentially, with Woolmer Green, where addition housing is planned by Welwyn Hatfield District Council but not accounted for by NHDC under the proposed housing for Knebworth.
To sum up, I appreciate that more housing is needed but the proposed developments appear to be a knee jerk reaction and not carefully thought through, not just for the existing residents but for the people who will move into Knebworth as a result of the increased housing available. Knebworth is a sought after village enjoyed by many, but this will be killed if the proposed housing goes ahead on such a grand scale.
In August 2013, planning approval was withdrawn for 3.600 new homes on land west of Stevenage, as the need was not there anymore.
When land is built on, it's lost to agriculture for ever. If we, as a nation, should need to feed ourselves without importation (eg. during a war) we will not have enough agricultural land available.

Many thanks for taking the time to read my thoughts, comments and concerns.

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

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.

See attached

See attached

I wish to register my complete objection to North Herts District Council proposed plans for the development to expand areas of Knebworth Village. The reasons for my objection as follows: -

1. Under this proposed plan it is clear that no consideration has been given to the impact it will have on the, already overstretched, local infrastructure.

2. The traffic flowing through, or trying to negotiate passing through Knebworth village, is horrendous at the best of times and mostly at a standstill, particularly on the B197 which is the main route through the village. Car parking, even for residents, is practically impossible and is exasperated by non-resident car owners parking their vehicles (where ever they feel fit) in order to use the local railway station for their daily to commute to work in London, Peterborough or Cambridge.

3. I myself have had occasion where inconsiderate drivers have parked in front of my property, for the whole day, preventing me from exiting my own driveway until they return in the evening. This type of situation (which is very common through-out the village) is intolerable and will only get worse if this planned development goes ahead. This plan simply does not provide for the current local resident's needs in anyway what so ever.

4. This proposed local plan lacks any form of strategy for Knebworth and cannot be deemed justified or fair in anyway in-so much as the forecast development proposed for Knebworth is much, much higher than other areas in North Hertfordshire. Furthermore the is no connection between the proposed extra housing, cumulative development and infrastructure needed to support the growth sustainably.

5. There are ample "Brown Field" and empty sites with-in North Hertfordshire that could be utilized to accommodate such additional housing/dwellings projects in the region, without the need of having to build on and remove designated Green Belt space between towns and villages in the district. The old Kodak site at Caxton way Stevenage is a prime example of such wasted acreage and unused wasteland.

6. National government policy states it will protect the Green Belt and Green Belt buffer zones, yet this local plan proposes the complete opposite by identifying three large areas to the east and west of Knebworth. Furthermore the proposed sites at KB1 & KB2 to the west of Knebworth are designated conservation areas. What is the point of having a National protection policy if it's not to be maintained?

7. The areas being consider for development KB1, KB2 and KB4 are prime productive Agricultural land which, if lost, will have an impact on wildlife sites of special scientific interest and will result in additional traffic congestion on narrow roads, unsuitable for heavy traffic and usage, not to mention the additional surface water and flooding problems.

8. The local primary school in the centre of the village is completely over-subscribed, mainly by the children of families that do not live in the village, and whilst the proposed plan has provision for new schooling, it is totally inadequate and does not take into consideration any future needs for access to secondary education and schooling.

9. There is absolutely no provision or consideration in this plan to address the impact such an additional influx would have on the already oversubscribed current medical practice and services.

10. The local Doctors surgery, at the centre of the village, is not fit for purpose and cannot cope with its current registered patients and ever growing elderly population, let alone and additional influx of families and their needs. As a patient of the practice I know by experience that it is near on impossible to secure an appointment to see your own local doctor and trying to do so often results in being offloaded to their sister surgery in Marymead, Stevenage - which is equally over-subscribed and at capacity.

11. There is no provision in the plan for the creation of any new (local) employment opportunities, potentially resulting in extra strains on the local unemployment and social services/benefits offices. Where and how are these new families going to be able to secure gainful employment when, as a district, North Herts already fairs poorly?

12. There is no provision in the plan to tackle the additional congestion on the roads and railway station during peak periods. The limited car parking spaces available are already at capacity, which often leads to double or illegal parking and the main train station struggles to cope as it is.

I have been resident in Knebworth village for the last 30 years, during which time I have witnessed the whole of the village (and surrounding areas) slowly grind to a halt. Should this plan go ahead as proposed, it is likely going to kill off all of what is left.

I trust my, and other concerned residents of Knebworth views will be seriously considered and that these proposals will be rejected as they are ill thought out and not feasible or sustainable.

Although I accept that more (affordable) housing is needed in North Herts, that
there are not enough brownfield sites to meet the targets NHDC has been given,
and that in effect NHDC is caught between a rock and a hard place, I am objecting
to the NHDC Local Plan for Knebworth (paragraphs 13.183-13.202) because it is
unsound. My reasons are the following:
1. It is not positively prepared because:
* NHDC conducted a preliminary consultation, but despite record numbers of
people attending public meetings and responding in writing, NHDC have not
addressed the community's areas of concern. Nor have they modified their
proposals for Knebworth in line with the community's objections - in fact, they
have actually increased the housing provision by 50%. Therefore, NHDC have not
engaged adequately with local residents.
* The proposal to build a minimum of 663 dwellings in Knebworth by 2031would
increase the number of houses in the village by a massive 31%, which would have
an overwhelmingly detrimental effect upon Knebworth's character, traffic,
infrastructure and Green Belt.
* The only access to the proposed homes on the western edge of Knebworth
would be via Gypsy Lane or Deards End Lane, which are narrow country lanes with
blind bends and no pedestrian paths. They are already heavily used as rat runs and
are notoriously dangerous for drivers and pedestrians alike. They could not sustain
the traffic associated with a 31% increase in population.
* Watton Road, St Martin's Lane (much of which is private), and Swangley's Lane
could not take the increased traffic from 200 homes built to the east of
Knebworth (site KB4). Watton Road in particular, which runs between the B197
and the A602, is already a major bottleneck in the village.
* The B197 running from Welwyn to Stevenage is often clogged with bumper-tobumper
traffic during the extended rush hours (even when there are no problems
on the A1(M), for which the B197 has become an overflow road) and would come
to a standstill with the large increase in traffic. Solving the notorious parking
problems in Knebworth High Street would not solve the problem, as it is caused
mainly by the sheer volume of traffic. The plan does not identify any specific
traffic-mitigation plans.
* The only access from the town centre to the proposed dwellings on the western
edge of Knebworth is under one of two railway bridges (in Station Road and Gun
Lane), which are each so narrow that there is not room for two cars abreast, and
where there is only a very narrow pedestrian pavement, causing people (especially
children) to step into the road when passing another pedestrian. There is an
electricity sub-station alongside each bridge which could hamper any attempts by
Network Rail to widen the road under each bridge (even assuming Network Rail
were willing to attempt any widening, which is unlikely).
* Trains running from Knebworth station are used not just by residents of
Knebworth but also by those from the surrounding villages, resulting in
overcrowded carriages and inadequate parking in the village. The station car park
is small and usually full, so commuters' cars are parked in the roads, creating
traffic hazards particularly in Park Lane, Gun Lane, Lytton Fields and Deards Wood.
These would only be exacerbated by a 31% increase in the village's population.
* The plan does not take into account the local infrastructure, which is inadequate
for such a large increase in population. As well as the transport problems (see
previous five points), the doctors' surgery is struggling to cope with the existing
population. In addition, there is only one primary school in Knebworth, which takes
60 pupils a year and is always oversubscribed, and there is no secondary school.
None of these could cope unless they were substantially enlarged.
* The plan makes no provision for a secondary school; it does claim that a primary
school could be built on site KB2/Gypsy Lane, but there is no actual provision for
it. In fact, its proximity to the A1(M) would mean that children - who are
especially vulnerable to black carbon, nitrogen dioxide and particulates, which
stunt their lung growth and brain development and cause asthma - would be
subjected to severe air pollution at the proposed school.
* The plan is unsustainable because the close proximity of the A1(M) would cause
irreversible damage to the well-being of future generations, not only in relation to
the proposed primary school (see previous point) but also because of its being the
site for two-thirds of the total number of houses proposed for Knebworth. The
184+ houses on site KB1/Deards End Lane would be less than 500m from the
A1(M) and the 200+ houses on site KB2/Gypsy Lane would be less than 250m
from the A1(M); at one end, the outer boundary of site KB2 is only about 100m
from the A1(M). This motorway is a pollution hotspot, meaning that the expected
life span of people living in the houses would be reduced. Noise pollution would
also be an issue for residents of these houses.
* The plan does not take into account the county's own plans for widening the
A1(M) between junctions 6 (Welwyn) and 7 (Stevenage) by one lane northbound
and one lane southbound. This is listed by herts.gov.uk as a medium-term scheme
and would surely drastically affect the proposed sites KB1/Deards End Lane and
KB2/Gypsy Lane, in terms of both land available and proximity to air pollution.
* There are drainage issues relating to the KB2/Gypsy Lane site. Parts of
Knebworth (including Broom Grove, Orchard Way, Gipsy Lane and site KB2 itself)
have been subject to localised flooding in the recent past, caused by surfacewater
drainage problems, an overflowing lagoon alongside the A1(M), and runoff
from this motorway, and these problems have still not been solved by NHDC.
Paving over the fields of sites KB1 and KB2 would exacerbate this problem. There
is also an acknowledged capacity issue at Thames Water's Rye Meads Sewage
Treatment Works, which treats Knebworth's and Stevenage's sewage.
* The proposals would remove 46.7 hectares of agricultural land, which is
important for wildlife and local residents' use, as well as agriculture. The impact on
Knebworth's setting in open countryside would be substantial and damaging.
* There is no guarantee in the plan that the majority of the proposed homes
would be social and affordable housing rather than the more expensive 'executive
homes' that developers prefer to build. Likewise, there is no guarantee that the
minimum number of houses would not be exceeded, creating an area of dense
housing that would be incompatible with the leafiness and rural nature of the
surroundings.
2. It is unjustified because:
* NHDC has not properly examined the possibility of building a proper 'garden
community' instead of drastically expanding Knebworth and other villages. In
addition, there are undoubtedly more brownfield sites that could be utilised.
Because of pressure to complete the plan by the deadline, NHDC, rather than
choosing the most appropriate strategy for Knebworth, has simply chosen the
easiest option - to use land from just two sources, both of which are eager to sell.
Because it is nearly all big chunks of Green Belt land rather than numerous small
brownfield sites, the land is cheaper to develop and therefore more attractive to
developers.
* The NPPF states that the Local Plan must identify a five-year supply of specific,
deliverable building sites, but the NHDC plan covers 20 years (2011-2031) rather
than five. Furthermore, NHDC has chosen an arbitrary housing target over the 20-
year period, designed to compensate for the unmet housing requirement
elsewhere, particularly in west Luton - this is indefensible and unnecessary.
* Ten years ago NHDC decided that 'Knebworth is not suitable for further
development as it would risk the sustainability of the village'. Now NHDC has
reversed their stance and recommended a housing target that is higher than
elsewhere in North Herts. This is unjustified and will have a disproportionate
impact on Knebworth, as NHDC's 2006 study foresaw.
* The plan for Knebworth does not take account of the impact of the Local Plan's
proposal for 150 new houses in the adjacent small village of Woolmer Green, the
population of which uses Knebworth facilities.
* There is no provision for additional employment in Knebworth; in fact, it reduces
employment by earmarking site KB3/Chas Lowe's, which has been commercial
premises, as residential development.
3. It is ineffective because:
* The number of houses the plan proposes would be impossible to achieve during
the designated time periods, particularly the final phase. There are not enough
builders to actually do the work within the time frame, given that they will be in
demand all over the county and indeed the country. Nor would there be time to
alter the infrastructure sufficiently to support a 31% increase in the population.
* The proposed Local Plan will not deliver a sustainable plan for Knebworth
because of the problems associated with overwhelming demands on the local
school and doctors' surgery, and with parking, traffic congestion, A1(M)-widening,
air pollution, drainage, and loss of Green Belt land that surrounds the village and
protects it from merging with Stevenage and nearby villages. The plan is
unrealistic and unattainable.
4. It is inconsistent with national policy because:
* NHDC has proposed that 46.7 hectares of land be built on, of which 99 per cent
is Green Belt. Yet the NPPF stipulates that Green Belt land should only be used
under 'exceptional circumstances'. These are not exceptional circumstances. The
Green Belt around Knebworth is vital to help retain its rural nature. Earlier in 2016,
the Dept for Communities and Local Government said, 'Ministers have repeatedly
been clear that demand for housing alone will not justify changing Green Belt
boundaries. Councils are already expected to prioritise development on brownfield
sites.' Furthermore, the local government secretary has recently said that the
Green Belt is 'absolutely sacrosanct'.
* The national policy is to try to keep villages' own identities and prevent them
from coalescing into one sprawling suburban conglomerate. The proposed
development of Green Belt land on the east side of Knebworth (site KB4) would
take the boundaries closer to Stevenage and to Datchworth, while Woolmer
Green's Local Plan would bring it closer to Knebworth.
* Government planning policy states that any development must be sustainable
with the current or planning infrastructure, but the proposed plan does not take
Knebworth's infrastructure inadequacies into account.
* The Air Pollution Minister for the Dept for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
has said that the government has committed to cutting air pollution to which
people are subjected, yet the Knebworth plan proposes that 384+ houses and a
primary school be built right next to a pollution hotspot, the A1(M).
* Government policy is to preserve the unique character of conservation areas.
Yet 59% of the proposed building land, containing two-thirds of the proposed
homes, is adjacent to one of Knebworth's two conservation areas - Stockens
Green conservation area and Deards End Lane conservation area - upon both of
which this development would have a seriously detrimental effect.

We are writing to express our concern about the Local Plan, which we feel is unsound. The proposed sites in Knebworth, as well as Codicote and the surrounding area, will have a detrimental impact on roads, railways, education, the environment and the character of our villages.

Knebworth surgery is already overstretched. There are plans to build a new surgery, but this is to replace the current one, it is not an additional service.

The Great Northern railway service is overcrowded at peak times and even off peak there is often standing room only. Parking at Knebworth Station is totally inadequate.

The B197 through Knebworth and the B656 through Codicote take a lot of commuter traffic from adjoining villages which converges at Old Welwyn to join the A1M. At peak times, all these roads become congested, even gridlocked. When the A1M, M1 or M25 have closures the extra traffic converges on our local roads bringing everything to a standstill. The impact of extra housing and therefore more vehicles will be catastrophic.

Contrary to the Department of Transport's guidelines Sites KB1 and KB2 in particular are unacceptably close to the AlM, potentially causing unpleasant and unacceptable environmental conditions for residents.

We feel that the Council has not demonstrated 'exceptional circumstances' for removing land from the Green Belt. Green Belt land offers significant protection of the space between villages and towns in the district enabling Knebworth to keep a separate identity.

The Local Plan is inadequately prepared and, if the proposed housing goes ahead, the character of Knebworth and the surrounding villages will be changed irrevocably. A new garden city, as has been suggested by our MP Stephen McPartland, would seem to be an excellent solution to the district's housing dilemma.

The local infrastructure needs have certainly not been considered to absorb all these extra houses.
There is one road the B197 which stretches from junction 6 of the A1M passing through Mardley Hill, Woolmer Green, Knebworth through to Stevenage.
When there are any problems on the A1M - which is generally two or three times a week - motorists will use the B197 which causes tail-back problems and often gridlock in Knebworth village centre.
In the morning rush hours it has taken me 45 minutes to get from Knebworth to junction 6 of the A1M which is only about 4 miles even before any extra traffic from the proposed developments.
In Knebworth access to the west side planned development (KB1 and KB2 , 200 dwellings, 184 dwellings plus primary school) is by 2 narrow low railway bridges. There is also access in Woolmer Green by a narrow low railway bridge. A
few years ago an application for a senior school in Woolmer Green on the field by this railway bridge was turned down one of the main reasons being lack of proper access. Why is access not considered a problem in this instance?
The bridges are too narrow and in Knebworth have blind bends leading up to them. There is also only a narrow path down one side and the road is single track. Pedestrians have to walk in the road when passing each other, especially when
pushchairs are involved. A friend of mine was actually hit on the hand by a car while walking under the bridge which she reported to the police. How can these bridges sustain yet more traffic?
Access to Knebworth can also be made from the B197 from Mardley Hill at Canonsfield Road which then turns into mostly single track lane - Pottersheath Road, Spinney Lane, Wych Elm Lane and finally Gipsy Lane. More traffic will
obviously use this way as a short-cut. More delivery vans, lorries and cars making it very dangerous for pedestrians (no pavements) and cyclists.
Also each Spring there are toads which migrate from one side of Spinney Lane to the other and homemade notices are put out warning motorists to slow down and look out for them. With the increased traffic I certainly fear for the
toads!
Green Belt Removal
The Green Belt land on the KB1 and KB2 sites is a buffer between Gipsy Lane and the A1M and it is a fact that the A1M at this point creates the most pollution due to the motorway merging from three to two lanes thus causing slow traffic every day especially in rush hours.
Also the Green Belt protects the space between Knebworth, Woolmer Green and Stevenage protecting its identity as a village which the residents regard as very important. Green Belt protection is national policy yet the Local Plan is
proposing to remove large areas. Surely the law was introduced to protect exactly these issues so how can it be dismissed so easily and what protection does any Green Belt have in the future?
Also important productive agricultural land will be lost for ever and how is this acceptable.
There is no consideration for the local economy. A key commercial site in the village (KB3) is going but instead of building a mixed use replacement only flats are being
planned.
An incease of at least 663 dwellings in Knebworth between 2011 and 2031 is an increase to the village of 31% which is completely unsustainable with no added infrastructure.
Even the railway station does not have adequate parking creating more congestion in the side roads and the plan from Thameslink is to reduce the fast trains into Kings Cross, not to increase them.
The extra impact of a planned 150 homes in Woolmer Green also appears not to have been considered.
The alternative in my view is the Stevenage West land which is reserved for 3,100 - why has this not been mentioned/considered??

See attachments

See attachment

See attachment

I refer to the Proposed Submission, Paragraphs Knebworth 13.183 - 13.202 of the local plan
and would refer to your References KB1, KB2 and KB4 in particular.

Apologies for not completing this on line but a glitch is not allowing me to do so...
However...

I wish to strongly object to the entire "plan" on the following grounds.

I have lived in Knebworth since buying my house in December, 1986. My parents lived in Knebworth from 1975 and my sister and her family, even longer.
We moved from St Albans, .. to be in the country.

This "Plan" (sic) takes absolutely no account of the following:

1 No plans to substantially, improve the basic infrastructure.
Access roads are already under heavy pressure from traffic for school runs, basic shopping needs and, worst of all, rail commuters who park just about anywhere within the surrounding estate roads.

2 No thought or consideration to the impact on the B197 that already sees considerable congestion in the village High Street; nor the current problems with narrow single passage rail bridges, both of which will only be subjected to far more traffic.

3 Totally ignoring our Green Belt space and local Conservation area/s.

4 The SW drainage that I "only just," managed to escape, where I now live... let alone the potential overloading of the FW system which, when viewing the landscape contours will require a number of Pumping Stations.

5 I note you believe a new Primary school will be built. I wonder! And close to the already at peak times, over run with high exhaust emitting traffic on the A1 (M)

6 KB3 will see yet more commuter traffic through the High Street, assuming new residents will wish to visit Stevenage New Town, of course? Drainage here too, might prove interesting!

I'll keep it short and trust your appropriate "committee" will have a serious re-think on this extremely, poorly, thought-out "Plan."

To my mind and my entire working career was in construction from drawing board to on site management, this "Plan" is absolute rubbish.

I shall view all future "Plans" icw Knebworth and its surrounding villages (and towns) with considerable interest from here on.