KB3 Chas Lowe site, London Road

The development of this site for residential homes means the loss of a valuable business and employment facility in the centre of the village.

Being a commercial site in the centre of the village, the Chas Lowe Site and its high level of traffic poses a positive impact to the safety of the village by slowing any "through village traffic".
Removing a key commercial site would have a negative impact, not only to the traffic flow, but also the local economy and employment level.

The high street is already at full capacity. This will increase with more houses on site. A doctors surgery has been planned for St Martns Road but does not consider the 31% increase.

I would rather that this central space was used for a new public house or restaurant, but I don't object to redevelopment of the site.

The high street is the hub of the Knebworth community where children greet each other on the way to school, parents meet for coffee, commuters run to the station, charity shops and the pharmacy used often.
It is already a traffic hazard with cars speeding through or parking and the loss of Chas Lowe would help breathe some space back into this community, allowing for wider pavements to keep our children safe. The housing would only add to the current overcrowding of the village and make it unsafe for our children to commute to school and about their lives.

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.

Site KB3 removes valuable employment from the village. There is no proposed mixed use for the site.

I object to the proposed developments KB1 KB2 KB3 and KB4 at Knebworth for the following reasons:

Knebworth is unsuitable for this large scale expansion because of insufficient infrastructure. The proximity of the A1 M motorway and any expansion on the KB1 and KB2 sites will then exceed the new government air pollution levels. The noise is bad now so sound barriers would be needed making building less viable for builders. Particularly if it is widened as proposed. The proposed dedesignation of Green Belt land for building is unacceptable when prime agricultural land is required to feed our ever growing population. Once built on, the land for agriculture is lost for ever. If more low cost housing is required then why build in one of the most expensive villages. The only people who would be able to afford to buy them would be London commuters as local jobs if any, are not high salaried.

Access to KB1 and KB2 sites will currently have to pass under Gun Lane or Knebworth railway bridges. These bridges are too narrow for vehicles to pass each other as these are dog legged. They are also unsuitable for high vehicles as there is a height restriction .

The Deards End Lane railway bridge has a 7.5 ton weight restriction and is narrow , also it is listed as a historic monument. Deards End lane is narrow and a Conservation area with many listed Lutyens properties . Thus the lane is unsuitable as a cut through to avoid the village.

If there is an accident on the A1M , which is frequent particularly in the winter months, the current knock on effect is a complete blockage through Knebworth high street and all the surrounding roads. This is because Knebworth is on the B197 which is the old great North Road and runs parallel to the A1M. Complete gridlock ensues
which means increased pollution and thousands of wasted man hours.

If we have the proposed 663 dwellings then there will be an extra approx. 1300 cars using the roads and adding to the pollution. Since we have no local industry or proposed job creation all the new residents will be driving or commuting elsewhere to work. The trains are already full when they get to Knebworth and the rail companies are considering reducing the fast rail services from Knebworth
to accommodate other stations.

There is also increased building planned in the surrounding villages so this will also increase traffic. Extending the fixed village boundaries eg Odyssey development and Woolmer Green proposals reduces the traditional Green Belt corridor between towns and villages.

The current drains in Knebworth are no longer maintained, in fact along Park Lane have been tarmacked over, and increased housing will exacerbate the drainage problems. Re KB1 and KB2 the fields adjacent to the motorway are a run off for water from the motorway. Also there are natural springs making it unsuitable for development. The proposals state that wouldn't be a problem. In practice any assurances cannot be relied on as there is flooding in places now and our climate is currently changing to be more extreme.

The current plan to build a single form entry school to accommodate 663 dwellings and possibly about 1300 children is hardly sufficient. What planet do these forecasters live on. The Chas Lowe site should not be developed for housing but for creating a new badly needed surgery and facilities for the village. We have also recently had a small new estate, Oak Tree Gardens, built on the Bulwer Lytton site , the new large retirement home. Also various small developments in the last few years plus infill in every conceivable place. So Knebworth has already played its part in local development. Any more will change the village into a suburb of Stevenage.

If Luton and surrounding need more housing then why build on a more expensive area that few can afford. It is far more sensible to build a purpose built new town with the appropriate infrastructure and employment.

Further to the proposed developments in Knebworth as part of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan, we object to each of the proposed developments. All four developments, at site KB1, site KB2, site KB3 and site KB4, will increase the existing housing stock by some 30%. This increase can in no way be accommodated in Knebworth without major new infrastructure and amenities also implemented, for which there are virtually no proposals within any of these developments. The only proposed community facility is within site KB2, being another primary school. This will be adjacent to the A1(M) which clearly is not an acceptable location for a primary school, with the high levels of noise and air pollution.

Knebworth already suffers from a number of issues, being:

- Inadequate doctors' surgery provision

- Very busy railway station and very limited car parking provision. Because NHDC has still not properly addressed the ongoing problem with commuter parking in Knebworth, there are numerous instances where commuters park badly, so as to prevent access by emergency vehicles, as well as causing general nuisance parking. This problem will become rapidly worse with the building of so many more dwellings and make Knebworth streets even more unsafe. In addition, Govia Thameslink Railway is currently reviewing its services and is proposing to potentially cut the fast train services from Knebworth to London in the future.

- Overused and busy roads, with limited/narrow access at two locations under the railway bridges, Station Road and Gun Lane. These two passing points particularly make major proposed developments highly unsafe and practically impossible because of such a lack of access (KB1 and KB2 will rely heavily, if not completely, on these two road access points, in order to build 200 and 184 dwellings respectively). We personally have witnessed a number of incidents where cars have struck pedestrians with wing mirrors and other pedestrians having to duck out of the way because of passing vans and larger vehicles. It will only be a matter of time if there were to be consistent heavy goods vehicle traffic through these points that a serious or fatal road accident will occur. The high street is also consistently congested with traffic and provides limited access.

- Limited leisure facilities. There is also speculation that Knebworth's only public house will be sold for yet more housing.

- Limited choice for secondary school places. Knebworth Primary School already at capacity.

To plan for such a housing stock increase without first properly addressing and eliminating these issues, as well as making adequate provision for new future issues which will be caused by both the building of the proposed developments and the subsequent strain on local amenities by those developments, is unacceptable and unviable.

Specifically, our objections for each site are:

KB1

- Green belt land. Helps protect the village to be a discrete entity as well as the importance of green space.
- Very close to the A1(M). Noise and air pollution.
- Traffic and access problems as stated above.
- Conservation area impact.

KB2

- Green belt land. Helps protect the village to be a discrete entity as well as the importance of green space.
- Very close to the A1(M). Noise and air pollution.
- Traffic and access problems as stated above.
- New additional primary school. Not acceptable location for a primary school as detailed above. Also, divisive for a village to have two separate primary schools; breaks down the community spirit.
- Conservation area impact.

KB3

- Hub of Knebworth. Loss of jobs and support of other village cafe and retail units.
- Vital to have a mixed use development here.
- Unsuitable for residential dwellings because of busy roads, noise and air pollution.
- Opportunity to use the land for Knebworth community, much needed extra facilities for existing Knebworth population could be incorporated here.

KB4

- Green belt land. Helps protect the village to be a discrete entity as well as the importance of green space.
- Loss of identity of Knebworth as village separate to Stevenage.
- Loss of much needed agricultural land.

Overwhelmingly, it is clear that these proposed housing developments have not been properly considered and at no time has a cohesive approach to these proposals been put forward to ensure Knebworth can incorporate such a character-changing plan while still providing day-to-day needs for its residents, as well as retaining its identity as both a community and a village surrounded by green belt land. Therefore, we object to each of the 4 housing proposals.

Please find here my main objections to the proposed local plan relating to:-

Knebworth (paragraphs 13.183 - 13.202 of the local plan)

-The plan seem to have no overall strategy. There is no mention of how the current infrastructure with be improved to accommodate such a huge percentage growth (663 additional homes)
-Green belt removal is contradictory to government policy. How can this be justified when much more suitable areas are available for development?
-Drainage. The current system is regularly over capacity after rainfall and results in flooding. I see no consideration within the plan to tackle this and the addition surface water created by a major development.
-Effect on Conservation areas. Both Deards End Lane and Stockens Green would be heavily impacted by the increased population, traffic, flooding and pollution generated by such an enormous developments.

Re. Site KB1

-Traffic congestion and pedestrian safety at the railway bridge by the station (Park lane). This bridge is narrow and would be completely unsuitable for higher traffic levels.
-Traffic congestion to Deards End Lane. As per railway bridge, this is a narrow road with no spare capacity.
-The impact on the wildlife in the various wooded site of Park lane. How will these be protected?
-Drainage. As above - . The current system is regularly over capacity after rainfall and results in flooding.

Re Site KB2

-How the A1(M) will impact the proposed school. Building a new school in an area of high pollution show no thought of the motorways environmental effect has been considered.
-Traffic congestion and pedestrian safety at the railway bridge at Gun Lane. Vehicles frequently mount the pavement at present (personal observation). Additional traffic will only add to this current pinch point.
-Drainage. As above - . The current system is regularly over capacity after rainfall and results in flooding.

Re Site KB3

-This is a key commercial site and if lost will detrimentally alter the High street and overall village feel.
-The High Street drainage is already an issues. 14 new home will only add to this problem.
-Employment in the village will fall. No alternative employment opportunities are noted.

Re Site KB4

-Yet more Green belt loss as above, it's is contradictory to government policy
-Traffic issues related to the increased traffic on the narrow Watton Road
-Yet again no consideration to the effect on the current drainage system.

This plan is completely flawed and seems to have been hastily drawn up with little consideration to the environment, current and future residents or infrastructure affects.

I trust this OBJECTION will be useful to you.

With reference to the Local Plan in respect of the proposed to development around Knebworth.

I do not feel that the plan provides an adequate solution to the development of Knebworth.

The current plan does not offer any connection between proposed development location.
The current plan does not have a strategy to upgrade local resources to cope with the additional population and houses introduced.
The suggested development at KB4 would cause excessive erosion of the green belt between Knebworth and Stevenage
The site at KB3 should not be developed for property but should remain as commercial to increase employment and facilities for Knebworth ie Parking/shops/schools
The current transportation links and highways are already congested. Areas such as the narrow railway bridge with narrow pavements causing people to stand in the highway to pass are already dangerous. Increasing developments on either side of Knebworth would dramatically increase both vehicular and pedestrian traffic through these locations

A plan that centred around development in ie Old Knebworth would appear to offer a better solution as resources and infrastructure could be concentrated in one area.

I am writing to detail my objections to the proposed local plan. In general the proposed local plan takes no account of the following:-

1. The proposed development of the green belt land amounts to an increase of 31% dwellings in Knebworth. There is no account taken of the impact this would have on the infrastructure of Knebworth. The development would have a major impact on the Rye Meads Sewage Treatment Works, already heading towards major capacity. There is no allocation for commercial premises in the plan so how can the development create jobs in the village. There is no connection between housing, further development and infrastructure to support this development.

2. The removal of the green belt goes against government policy in that the green belt protects the space between towns and villages and maintains the separate identity of Knebworth. It would have a major impact on the two Conservation areas in Knebworth.

3. There would be a very serious negative impact on the local roads. The B197 is always congested at busy rush hour times, the local roads are not suitable for further traffic which would be created by further development in the area. I suggest that the planning inspector visits the area during rush hour times to witness the chaos that ensues at busy times on the B197.

3. One other thing to think about is the amount of extra, heavy traffic which would use the narrow local roads whilst construction is going on. Dears End Lane which runs from Park Lane to Stevenage has a narrow bridge at one end with a weight restriction. This is not in any way suitable for heavy construction lorries as besides the weight restriction on the bridge Deards End Lane is part of a conservation area and as the word Lane suggests it is a narrow lane suitable for only single car traffic. If the construction traffic travelled through the village on the B197 it would have to go along Station Road and under the railway bridge by Knebworth Railway station which again is only suitable for single lane traffic and also has a height restriction. The only other route for construction traffic from Welwyn or Stevenage would be along the B197 and then along Gun Lane which again is a narrow lane with a bridge again only suitable for single lane traffic and with a height restriction.

KB1
This development is sited next to a conservation area in Deards End Lane. Looking at the placing of KB1, the only entry and exit point would be Park Lane which again, as the name suggests is a narrow lane. Residents wanting to drive to Stevenage would have to travel along Park Lane and the only way to get to Stevenage by car is either along Deards End Lane or through Station Road and onto the B197. Both routes would be grid locked at busy times and at best busy at all other times.

KB2
This site again would only be entered and existed via Park Lane directly opposite the KB1 site. There has been mention of a school being built on this site. However the County Council have shown no interest in building a school and as there will be several developers on this site, none of them would have an incentive to build a new school which would be needed if the housing in the area is increased by 31%. When the Orchard Road development was built during the early seventies, a school was promised by the builders in what is now Bellamy Close but once the development was passed no school was built. Instead of a school which was badly needed even then, a development of large detached houses was built on the land which was supposed to have a school. Nothing was done about this at the time so how can Knebworth residents believe the NHDCs' promises of a new school on this site. The site is next to the A1 so pollution levels should be taken into account if a school was to be built and in fact flooding is another problem with this site. During heavy rain, flood water drains from this site onto the houses and gardens in Orchard Way, these houses are often flooded and Gipsy Lane which runs beside this site is often flooded at the lowest point of the lane making it impassable at times. As I have said before this all has an impact on the infrastructure of the area.

KB3
This proposed development is on the Chas Lowe site in the middle of the village. Once again the problem with this site is flooding. Shops on the B197 within the village are regularly flooded and in fact have to put sand bags at the doors some times during bad weather. This site is a commercial site at the moment so a housing development would in fact remove an area which supplies employment.

KB4
This site again would suffer from flooding, the cemetery on the Watton Road is often flooded during bad weather and the KB4 site is on the same level or maybe lower than the cemetery. The entry and exit points are again on a narrow lane ( Watton Road) and this would have a detrimental affect on the area with heavy traffic which the lane is not suitable for. This site is also a large agriculture area which would be lost with this development.

In summary, the local plan is not a positive plan for Knebworth. The roads in the area will not sustain an increase of 31% in housing development, the drainage and sewage system will not cope with this increase. The loss of green belt will be detrimental to the area, it is national policy to protect the green belt so how can this vast decrease of green belt be positive for Knebworth. The Govia Thameslink railway is proposing significant changes to the train timetable for trains stopping at Knebworth meaning less 'all stations' trains. The NHDC has identified Knebworth as having a 71% rise in use during the last decade so how can a 31% increase in housing be justified.

Land at Stevenage West has been identified and reserved for housing (3,100 homes) so how can NHDC justify the proposed Locan Plan.

I submit my objections to the Local Plan and trust that they will be taken into account along with others.

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.

The comments below relate in particular to the BK3 proposed development site in Barkway.

INTRODUCTION
My main concern is the proposal to use this piece of land for the benefit of fulfilling some of the government requirements for North Herts to build 4,400 dwellings within the lifetime of the plan, seemingly disregarding the suitability of place, size, sustainability and desirability in relation to those who come to live there, and to those already resident in the village.

The main area of Barkway is the High Street where houses date from as early as the sixteenth century and is of historic consequence having the first toll house in the country and early coaching houses. There is a Pilgrim's Way just below the proposed land

COMMENTS ON SECTIONS OF THE NATIONAL POLICY FRAMEWORK
NPPF Para14 and para 55
In the past North Herts houses built on the edge of the Barkway have had minimal social and visual impact. This cannot be said for the introduction of 140 dwellings forming a suburban environment at odds with the High Street and increasingly dividing Barkway into two separate communities to the detriment of each

NPPF paras 17, 30, 34 and 35
Car ownership would increase. 100 to 200 extra cars would inevitably have to travel through the dangerous corner of High Street/Royston Road or along the Joint to the A10,,, increasing pollution and noise already at unacceptable levels.
Public transport has been reduced to the occasional daily bus to Royston/Hertford
This need for cars is because there are few services available. The doctor and the post office/shop are 4 miles away; the primary school has vacancies but not for the number of children to be expected from 100 - 140 houses;
Social facilities are a Social Club; Public House; Recreation Ground with children's play area and a pavilion; further entertainment would involve a car journey.
Cars could be kept running by the two repair shops and a garage - one service that would be appreciated by newcomers to the estate.

NPPF para 38
Local evidence shows that the setting up of shops, cafes etc has been short term and even in the one building now used by a hairdresser, its use changes frequently.
Any shop on BK3 would mainly be accessed by car as the distance from one end of the village to another is over a mile
In a similar way there is little evidence that opportunities for rural employment would increase

CONCLUSION
I feel that there is very little positive evidence that the allocation of 140 houses on site BK3 would enhance the environment, encourage key facilities or make maximum use of existing ones, rather it would encourage divisiveness, decrease the services available to all residents by sheer numbers, and although it would answer the housing shortage foreseen by the Government, that would only happen by the movement from one house to another so that those who wished to live in a rural area would take the place of those for whom the housing development was originally intended.

With reference to the Local Plan in respect of the proposed to development around Knebworth.

I do not feel that the plan provides an adequate solution to the development of Knebworth.

The current plan does not offer any connection between proposed development location.
The current plan does not have a strategy to upgrade local resources to cope with the additional population and houses introduced.
The suggested development at KB4 would cause excessive erosion of the green belt between Knebworth and Stevenage
The site at KB3 should not be developed for property but should remain as commercial to increase employment and facilities for Knebworth ie Parking/shops/schools
The current transportation links and highways are already congested. Areas such as the narrow railway bridge with narrow pavements causing people to stand in the highway to pass are already dangerous. Increasing developments on either side of Knebworth would dramatically increase both vehicular and pedestrian traffic through these locations

A plan that centred around development in ie Old Knebworth would appear to offer a better solution as resources and infrastructure could be concentrated in one area.

I would like to strongly object to the proposals on the following grounds:

1. There is a clear lack of strategy for Knebworth .The roads are already blocked with insufficient parking and the infrastructure particularly around the high street and station are already dangerous and over crowded

2 . The are obvious consequences in terms of lack of schools and doctors etc

3 Stevenage west is already reserved for over 3000 homes which will design the correct infrastructure around it

4.The villages are a conservation area this will be the final straw

5.With regard to k31 and k32 ,Gypsy Lane and Deards end lane are already death traps and this will make these roads totally unsafe

The area will become a bottleneck with particular risks to the weight restricted railway bridge,

Deards end is its own conservation area and this will be the final straw especially taking away the green belt buffer between the roads and the A1

There are more appropriate and safer areas than this solution

I am writing with regards to the planning proposals for Knebworth, in particular KB3 and KB4.

I have a strong objection to building going ahead on both of these sites for many reasons. Firstly with regards to KB3, turning this area into residential properties is not in-keeping with the immediate environment. The village could really benefit from more shops/ boutiques/ restaurants on this site. Keeping this as a commercial site of some description will benefit the other traders in the village, attract people from surrounding villages and keep a more vibrant buzz about the village. A licenced restaurant would be the preferred option for many!!

In relation to KB4, I feel it is outrageous for any sort of building work to go ahead. Firstly, it is green belt area and building on this would dilute any distinction between Stevenage/ Knebworth. The village high street cannot cope with any increase in traffic, similarly the speed at which cars descend upon the village from Stevenage Road is already hazardous. The lanes into Knebworth, from Watton Road are not wide enough to manage any increase in volume of traffic. The impact on the doctors , school, library and local conveniences will be significantly negative. The local school is already over subscribed and it would be outrageous to think that many children would not be able to attend their nearest/ local school! Finally, due to the rising land, the visual impact of the domineering skyline will be awful and the feeling of space would be lost because of loss of valuable surrounding countryside.

In summary, I am in strong opposition to the NHDC proposals on KB3 and KB4.

See attachment

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

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

I 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.

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 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.

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