KB2 Land off Gypsy Lane

Section 1:

Knebworth Estates congratulates North Hertfordshire District Council on a Plan that has - not before time - been positively prepared, and - within its delayed and limited time frame - appears justified, effective and consistent with national policy.

Section 4.9 - Policy SP2:

Knebworth Estates supports Knebworth's inclusion as a Category A village, and Old Knebworth's inclusion as a Category B village - although it argues that there are sometimes cases where it is preferable for a village to evolve outside of its "built environment" rather than on the open and green spaces within its "built environment", and that the Plan should allow for such cases.

Section 4.37 - Policy SP4:

Knebworth Estates supports the Plan's commitment to protecting the vitality and viability of the range of retail facilities in the local centre of Knebworth.

Section 4.127:

Knebworth Estates supports the Plan's commitment to deliver appropriate primary and secondary school facilities for Knebworth.

Section 4.162:

Knebworth Estates supports the Plan's commitment "to find new, appropriate uses and solutions to secure the future of heritage assets."

Section 4.165:

Knebworth Estates does not support the Plan considering serving Tree Preservation Orders within historic parks and gardens as this could run contrary to the Plan's commitments in Section 4.162 and the management of historic parks and gardens - and the preservation of, interpretation of, and access to, the heritage assets within - are unlikely to be any better served than by those to whom it is a day-in-day-out commitment and responsibility. Knebworth Park and Gardens has its own Historic England approved Conservation Plan and an exemplary record in its heritage management, and yet another level of statutory requirement is unjustified, unnecessary and counter-productive.

Section 5.28 & 5.29:

Knebworth Estates supports the Plan's intent that Knebworth village centre should continue to provide a mix of shopping, services and community facilities.

Sections 5.39 to 5.48 and Policy ETC8:

Knebworth Estates supports the Plan's commitment to Tourism and argues that - whilst being an Historic England "Priority Building At Risk" - Knebworth House and Knebworth Park belie Section 5.41's statement that North Hertfordshire is not a major tourist destination. The Visit Herts DMO, VisitEngland, the LEP, and Hertfordshire County Council all recognise the district's strong tourism draw and impact. Knebworth House is one of only two Historic Houses in Hertfordshire with a national profile (the other being Hatfield House in the Welwyn and Hatfield district) and Knebworth Park is unique nationally in its capacity for large music events. The Plan should be aspirational to the benefits and potential of Tourism.

Section 6:

Knebworth Estates broadly supports the Plan's Green Belt policies - although, as in Section 4.9, Policy SP2 above - it argues that there are sometimes cases where it is preferable for communities to evolve outside of the "built environment" rather than threatening the quality of life, open and green spaces, balanced zoning and heritage of the "built environment". Knebworth Estates supports the consideration of "exceptional circumstances" within Green Belt policy.

Section 12 - Policy HE2:

Knebworth Estates supports the Plan's "Heritage at risk" policy.

Section 13.183 to 13.202 - Knebworth:

Knebworth Estates supports the Plan's policy for Knebworth within the context and scope of the Plan's objectives and time scales.

Ref - Knebworth - KB1 & KB2:

Knebworth Estates supports the Plan's Housing Allocation and site specific criteria for KB1 and KB2:

Commitment

As freehold owners of the sites identified as KB1 and KB2, Knebworth Estates reiterates its commitment, as expressed in previous consultation responses - and in consultation responses of the independent charity representing Knebworth House (The Knebworth House Education and Preservation Trust), to which Knebworth Estates is primary donor - that if these sites are brought forward for residential designation, it will move swiftly to work with the Council to deliver the full required housing targets with maximum sensitivity to the community of which it has been a part for over 500 years.

Proof of this commitment is to be found in the Estate's long record of involvement in the evolution of the community of Knebworth - since the settlement's beginnings - and specifically, in its multi-generational quest to restore and protect Knebworth House, its Park and curtilage, for public benefit and access (see "Opportunity" below).

The Estate treasures Knebworth's green spaces and environment - it has been a long term guardian of these - however it also believes that Knebworth should play its part in contributing to housing need identified in the Plan, and in the planned evolution of the District as conceived in the Plan. It recognises, with the Plan, Knebworth's pre-existing infrastructure - "a good range of facilities including a railway station, school, doctors and dentists, library, a range of shops, village hall and churches" - and thus considers it right that Knebworth shares responsibility to provide for residential growth with other communities in the District.

As part of Local Plan residential growth, the Estate supports the provision of affordable housing and schemes to provide homes for those who have grown up in the community. It recognises that new homes generate extra pressure on schools and supports increasing school provision. Increased school provision will strengthen Knebworth's independence of Stevenage and other growing towns, promote community spirit - a deficiency identified in the Knebworth Parish Plan (April 2007) - and ease pressure on road and rail networks at peak times.

Delivery

The Estate recognises the extensive evidence base compiled by the Council to support the suitability of sites KB1 and KB2 and looks forward to working with the Council, the community, neighbouring landowners and future development partners to conduct further studies to confirm and expand on this evidence, which it believes to be sound.

The Estate is pleased to have already contributed to existing evidence with input into Knebworth Parish Council's Knebworth Parish Plan (April 2007 - http://www.knebworthparishcouncil.gov.uk/uploads/knebworth-parishplan-1sted-web.pdf) and Knebworth Sites Appraisal Report (December 2007 - http://www.knebworthoptionsreport.org/).

Sustainability

The Estate recognises the Council's Capacity and Sensitivity Studies of 2006, and - as part of the community, and its owners resident within the community - is particularly sensitive to the issues raised by those who oppose development on these sites. It has listened to, recorded, and considered the practical concerns of its neighbours - through previous consultations, involvement in the Knebworth Parish Plan (April 2007) and the Village Appraisals of 1996 and 2007, and at a number of public meetings over the years - and is confident there are practical solutions and mitigations to the issues raised.

The Estate would seek - in working with the Council, any development partners and its neighbouring landowners - to work with Knebworth's new Neighbourhood Plan to promote a balance of achieving the Local Plan's targets, addressing sustainability and infrastructure issues and concerns, and fulfilling community aspirations. Within the parameters of the Plan, it would look to development in keeping with - and improving on - Knebworth's existing Conservation Areas and Edwin Lutyens' original 1910 framework for "Knebworth Garden Village".

Opportunity

Reinforcing the Estate's commitment, and adding to the opportunity of facility and infrastructure improvement in the wider community, is one factor that is unique to Knebworth Estates. Reflecting the intent of the Plan in Policy SP13a - "Maintaining a strong presumption in favour of the retention, preservation and enhancement of heritage assets and their setting" - the Local Plan's requirement of Estate sites for residential provision would present a once-in-a-generation opportunity to solve the Estate's multi-generational quest to endow the Knebworth House Education and Preservation Trust, a charity created in 1984 for the preservation and enhancement of the heritage asset of Knebworth House and its setting.

Residential designation of KB1 and KB2 would result in sufficient funding for this charity to halt the decay of Knebworth House - an Historic England designated "Priority Building At Risk" - complete its half-finished programme of urgent restoration, and secure an endowment for its future survival, and continued and expanded public access and interpretation.

The Knebworth House charity's record over its 33 year history, its established "exceptional circumstances", its Conservation Plan as submitted to North Hertfordshire District Council in July 2001 - and the Estate's record in endowing, and seeking to complete that endowment - is evidence of the commitment of the Estate and the Charity.

The collateral opportunity presented by the designation of KB1 and KB2 within the Local Plan therefore extends beyond the crucial issue of local residential shortfall, to address also major issues of benefit to the whole region and the nation beyond.

Ref - Knebworth - KB4:

Knebworth Estates supports the Plan's Housing Allocation for KB4. Whilst comfortable that KB1 and KB2 could be successfully delivered without KB4, Knebworth Estates expresses its support for KB4. The Estate enjoys a close and mutually supportive relationship with the landowners of KB4 and, in the event that both landowners have sites proposed for development in the final Plan, we would look to work closely with each other to take an holistic view of Knebworth village and, together, maximise infrastructure advantages for the greater benefit of the wider village and its long-term future.

See attached

See attached

See attachment

See attachment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schools:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would to register the following concerns to the proposal for 663 dwellings in Knebworth over the next 15 years:
1. Traffic congestion
As an essential car user for my employment (Rapid Response Occupational Therapist) in St Albans, I have no alternative but to drive to work along the B197 out of Knebworth. Furthermore our children take the school bus from Knebworth to Stevenage. When there is an incident on the A1M between junction 6-7 , north or southbound, all traffic is routed through Knebworth, resulting in an already busy road coming to a standstill. This means that drivers/students are very late to school and work.
An additional 663 dwelling will result in many more cars but there appears to be no strategy to deal with this increased demand on the roads leading to and within Knebworth.

2. Health and social Care facilities
It is common practise to wait 2- 3 weeks for a routine GP appointment and many more weeks for a routine hospital appointment. Social care in the area is at breaking point with vulnerable patients waiting weeks for an assessment and then a suitable package of care.
The residents in the proposed dwellings will have health and social care needs but there is no plan to increase health and social care provision in North Herts.

3. Schools
The plan provides for an additional primary school on site KB2, but there is no plan for an additional secondary school. It is currently difficult to get into secondary schools within the area.
An additional 663 dwellings will house students in need to secondary school places these students will put more pressure on existing places. The local plan does not provide additional access to secondary schools.

4. Public Transport
Commuter trains at peak times are usually full and many people who have paid for expensive seats stand from Knebworth to Kings Cross.
The new dwellings will house commuters who will put additional pressure on current trains. Although there is currently a GTR consultation details proposed changes to peak hour trains, these do not appear sufficient for the additional commuters these properties will house.

5. Greenbelt land
Three of the proposed sites (KB1, KB2, KB4) are on Greenbelt land, with sites KB1 and KB2 on designated conservation areas. There has already been substantial growth in Knebworth over the last 10 years (Knebworth Gate, the Lytton Field houses)
It is national policy to protect land within the Green Belt (See - 'planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/policy/achieving-sustainable-development/delivering-sustainable-development/9-protecting-green-belt-land' [accessed 29/11/16]) . However the Local Plan proposes the removal of large areas to the East and West of Knebworth. The local plan therefore contradicts National Planning policy.

I would be grateful if you could register my concerns and reply as soon as possible.
Thank you for your time and assistance

3.ii Soundness

Positively prepared

The Preferred Options document was open to public consultation between Dec 2014 and Jan 2015. Site KB4 (the land to the East of Knebworth) was not included in that document. This is, therefore, the first time that local residents and the school have had the opportunity of seeing, and commenting on, the planned KB4 development

The North Herts Local Plan is for an increase of 598 new homes in Knebworth plus a further 65 homes which have already been granted planning permission. This is a 31% increase in the size of the village. For development of more than 500 houses (what NHDC call a 'Strategic Housing Site') they require a Strategic Policy. Whilst none of the individual proposed sites around the outskirts of Knebworth meet this threshold, collectively they do.

Additional development is proposed in the Local Plans of adjacent district councils of Stevenage and Welwyn Hatfield (at Woolmer Green). All of the proposed sites will impact on the infrastructure of the village. I have outlined, in section 4 below, some of the infrastructure requirements that directly affect the school which appear have been overlooked.
The failure to have an integrated Strategic Policy for Knebworth is clear evidence that the Plan has not been positively prepared.

Effective

1. Infrastructure

Schools

Additional primary school place provision is an obvious requirement should the proposed development proceed. This has been acknowledged in the Plan
Section 13.191 says, site KB2 will provide an additional primary school in the West of Knebworth. This was a reasonable approach in the preferred options document of 2014/15, when KB4 was not included in the development proposals, However, now that KB4 is in the final version of the Local Plan, this does not make sense.

It is my considered opinion that Primary schooling in Knebworth is not best delivered from 2 separate sites, so far apart. It is unlikely that from an effectiveness and efficiency aspect, 2 separate primary schools, requiring separate management and administration teams, could be justified.
Also, if you have 2 sites with the separation proposed, if you can imagine a parent with a child in each site, which is a likelihood, dropping children off at their respective schools at the same time. Difficult without a fast car!
This would do little encourage parents to walk with their children to school. This would not be sustainable and do little to ease the traffic and parking problems.

So the additional school should be as close as possible to the existing site.

In the current Local Plan, land adjacent to the existing school site, KB4, is now proposed for development. Surely, if the developments proceed, it would be better if the additional primary school were adjacent to the existing school. This would appear to be possible, but has not been considered.

In addition, there is no additional provision for school spaces for the 150 houses proposed for Woolmer Green. The current school site at Woolmer Green has no space for additional classrooms and is at capacity. The location of their proposed housing development is North of Woolmer Green and South of Knebworth, but within walking distance of the current school and would, I believe fall into our catchment area.

Roads and Footways

Traffic and parking are significant problems in the vicinity of the school, particularly when parents are dropping off and picking up children from school. This adds to the delays in the High Street and joining roads and creates hazardous situations for pedestrians crossing at the road junctions.
Swangleys Lane often becomes impassable for wider vehicles, due to parents parking their cars.
Swangleys Lane is not wide enough to cope with the traffic that would result from the new development
There are no footways on Old Lane, Swangleys Lane or St Martins Road for much of their length.
There are no safe drop off or pick up points adjacent to the school. Perhaps the local Plan could provide this facility ?

One of the main pedestrian routes, for parents and children on the west side of the railway to get to the school, is by the Station Road bridge footway. The footway is approximately 1 metre wide over the 52 metre length of the underbridge. This is insufficient for 2 people to pass without 1 person stepping in to the road.
The current situation for pedestrians is unsafe.

This is not an exhaustive list. In the event that development proceeds in accordance with the Local Plan, all of the the infrastructure needs should be addressed

Safeguarding and KB4

Safeguarding the children attending Knebworth school is our highest priority.
Governors, staff and parents have expressed concerns previously about new developments overlooking the school playing fields. This is currently a particularly sensitive issue. The school has no control of who lives in these developments and whether they have been assessed through the Disclosure and Debarring Service.
KB4 would appear to overlook the School Playing Fields. If the development of KB4 proceeds the school would want assurance that the design of the buildings will prevent or significantly reduce the incidence of oversight of the School Playing Fields.

Economic Factors:
Point 1.7 of the LP confirms the aim to 'protect existing Green Belt and only alter it in exceptional circumstances'. In order for a housing development to be considered 'exceptional circumstances' I would argue that provision must be outlined in the LP for affordable housing schemes. The local plan suggests that 'homes must address the impact they may have on the environment and most of all meet the needs of our local population including ensuring that our families can afford to live here and that the right type of homes are provided for them'
As there has been a 20% rise in house prices over the last two years affordable housing in North Hertfordshire is a serious issue, with the average house price in the district 'well above the regional and national averages' as highlighted in point 2.22 of the LP. With 'currently more than 1,600 households on the local authority housing register awaiting assistance with their housing needs' it is an oversight for the LP to fail to include a guarantee of provision to meet these needs and therefore justify the exceptional circumstances of building on the Green Belt. The LP acknowledges the 'need for more affordable housing' but makes no attempt to confirm that affordable housing or social housing will be assured within the new developments.
Environmental Factors:
Key environmental factors in the Knebworth development sites refer to preservation of green belt land and aesthetics, as well as mitigation of drainage strategy in existing surface water flood risk issues. As there are several types of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems, the LP should be revised to outline which systems will be put in place for sites KB1 and KB2 so a proper assessment of environmental impact can be undertaken.
According to the NHDC Green Belt Review, listed as supporting evidence for the LP, the Green Belt along the A1(M) corridor to the south of Stevenage 'plays an important role in preventing sprawl' which was of course one of the primary reasons for setting up the Green Belt. It should be considered that 2 of the development sites, KB1 and KB2 are proposed for building on this specific stretch of Green Belt land. The finding of the review states that the Green Belt along the A1(M) corridor 'overall makes a significant contribution to Green Belt purposes, helping to prevent sprawl, merger and encroachment' and therefore the development on this land should be fully justified as extraordinary circumstances in the LP. The Green Belt separating Stevenage and Knebworth performs a significant function, as opposed to the Green Belt to the east of Luton which currently performs a limited function in terms of the preventing the merger of towns;. With the development of site KB1, Knebworth and Stevenage will be separated by the Private Golf club only, leaving the separation of Knebworth and Stevenage tenuous.
Transport and Congestion Infrastructure:
The LP does not go into much detail on the provision of transport infrastructure despite point 2.76 acknowledging that 'The District has a considerable daily outflow of commuters, to highly skilled employment areas mainly in central London'. I would like to enquire as to whether the LP will be revised if the proposed changes to Great Northern Rail provision between Cambridge/London and Peterborough/London as the reduction in services stopping at Knebworth at peak times will have a severe impact on overcrowding at Knebworth Station for commuters. Growth in commuters by train has increased by 71% in the last decade compared with a 48% increase in Hitchin and Letchworth. The addition of 600 new homes in Knebworth would also increase the number of rail users and contribute to overcrowding on services. The LP states that investment plans of key infrastructures and utilities providers including Network Rail, Highways England and Thames Water' have been taken into account but the proposed changes to rail services affecting Knebworth from 2018 has not been acknowledged in the LP.
I notice that clause 13.195 of the LP states 'Our transport modelling does not identify any specific mitigation scheme requirements for Knebworth.' This is an extreme oversight as several roads in Knebworth already experience congestion and an increase in population will exacerbate this. Most notably, the high street which has been acknowledged in the LP as a 'pinch point, particularly when delays or incidents on the A1(M) result in the B197 being used as an alternate route'. However, no change to transport infrastructure has been outlined in the LP. Whilst I understand the point made in 13.197 that 'Highway management measures, such as the use of Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs), lie outside the direct control of the planning system and it is therefore not for this Local Plan to dictate the most appropriate solution(s).' I believe exploration into possibilities before the LP is approved is important. In particular, the provision for 14 homes on the KB3 site directly located on the village high street will increase congestion in that area and has not been addressed by the local plan.
Additionally, the LP acknowledges the transportation infrastructure issues surrounding sites KB1 and KB2 in relation to the Deards End Lane Railway Bridge, a scheduled Ancient Monument that is often too narrow for two vehicles to pass at the same time. The additional almost 400 houses in sites KB1 and KB2 will increase Deards End Lane traffic heavily as an access route into Stevenage if additional roads are not constructed to draw traffic away from Deards End Lane and Gypsy Lane near sites KB1 and KB2, and the LP currently makes no mention of action to be taken on these points.
In addition, point 13.199 indicates that 'Sites in Knebworth will need to ensure that any transport assessments appropriately take these issues into account and contribute reasonably to any necessary mitigation measures'. With Deards End Lane Railway Bridge being a Scheduled Ancient Monument, will plans for other routes into Stevenage that avoid Deards End Lane and Gypsy Lane be considered?
As the LP refers to the NHDC Infrastructure Delivery Plan September 2016 as a representation of the LP for infrastructure, it is necessary to note that the Local Transport Plan 3 encourages 'support for new development to be sited and designed so that maximum use can be made of sustainable modes, including bus travel, in order to access services'. The Infrastructure delivery plan also acknowledges that local bus services are 'patchy in rural areas', running infrequently in Knebworth. The proposed new developments would put further strain on bus services to and from the village. There being 'no specific proposals or funding' for a mitigation scheme for Knebworth transport despite 'existing highway issues - for instance in Knebworth' is a major oversight in the LP and a barrier to resident acceptance of the plan.
The LP acknowledges that it will be necessary to 'work with the Highway Authority when taking forward the development sites set out in the Local Plan. Work on the next iteration of the LTP -the 2050 Transport Vision- is well underway and expected to be finalized by the end of 2016' It is impossible for residents of Knebworth to respond to transport infrastructure issues until the next iteration of the LTP has been released, and I therefore suggest the period of consultation should be extended until after the release of this plan.
Logistic and Location Factors:
The LP references the Statement of Community as reason for easing the 'unmet needs from Luton'. Whilst the developments in North Herts arguably have the space to accommodate this need, it may not be logistically sound. If demand for housing in Luton is high, this suggests people already working in Luton and surrounding areas are driving the demand. With the LP's already acknowledged that 'no rail links from the District to the west exist, meaning towns like Luton and Milton Keynes are less accessible via public transport'. This would put additional strain on road traffic and already strained bus services as those commuting West into Luton and surrounding areas will be forced to commute by car.
GP and Health Services Provision:
Currently the Knebworth Medical Practice has 33 patients per square meter with absolutely no spare capacity for additional patients. This contrasts with the relatively lower patients per square meter in Hitchin and parts of Letchworth. Considering best practice principles suggest that 'the number of registered patients at that practice should not exceed a density of 20 patients per square metre' there is clear evidence that the Knebworth Medical Practice cannot be expected to cope with additional patients. The LP presents that 'an application has recently been submitted for a new library, doctors surgery and pharmacy on the site of the current library' but makes no further mention of this. I suggest that the LP should make provision for these facilities to be approved prior to the plan being accepted, as should the application for these facilities be declined; the village would not be able to cope with the new developments of the LP.
Waste Water:
In the NHDC Infrastructure Delivery Plan, Thames Water's evaluation of sewerage capacity for Knebworth suggests 'Further consideration of sewerage capacity needed and issues with the foul sewer system needs reviewing as the village does not have a dedicated surface water system.'

See attached

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See attachment

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

See attachment

See attached

See attachment

See attachment

See attached