KB4 Land east of Knebworth

Knebworth is a Village (Category A) and the plan incorrectly treats it as if it is a town and this development will have an unsound impact on the Parish. None of the sites proposed can be justified as meeting the guidance on development and therefore is not deliverable.
Site KB4 Land east of Knebworth - this is the first time that this land has been included in the plan which proves there has been a lack of consultation, it has just been added into the final plan without being included in the draft plan. Therefore, it is not justified as it has not followed due process.
There is a total lack of strategy between the planned housing, cumulative development and the infrastructure. The village of Knebworth could not sustain the number of people this housing would introduce.
There is another area (Stevenage West) where land has already been reserved for 3100 homes - providing enough housing to satisfy the area's needs. The house prices in this location would be more affordable. The average price for a semi-detached 3-bed house in Knebworth is £495,626. Which would not be affordable to many.
As I live on the edge of the village near the Knebworth sign on Watton Road, I want to preserve the green belt which, according to government policy, is to protect the space between towns so they do not merge. Stopping a village merging into a town is very important. Building on site KB4 would take Knebworth nearer to Bragbury End and Stevenage.
Watton Road (which has traffic calming because of the crematorium in Bragbury End) is already a bottleneck and with extra housing there will be major traffic difficulties especially at the rush hours. Difficulties occur at the roundabout on to Stevenage/London Roads. Cars from Bragbury End have to drive through Knebworth to get to Stevenage as their exit to Stevenage has been made into "Buses only".
If the parking and traffic flow in Knebworth is even more restricted, then its shops and the commerce will be greatly affected. The local economy will be effected by the Chas Lowe closure.
The 3 railway bridges on Gun Lane, Deards End Lane and Station Road create major hazards with extra traffic. All of these roads and bridges cannot be widened to accommodate more traffic.
663 dwellings could mean 1326 cars!! To develop this number of houses the existing roads are not adequate enough to handle the construction traffic that the plan will generate because building materials would have to be brought in from Ware and St Albans in very large trucks). These roads have already got lack of capacity. Deliveries to Chas Lowe blocks the high street regularly.
If developers are not required to provide infrastructure - how are they going to give the new house owners enough school places, adequate transport systems, doctors, dentists, train seats etc. There has already been a 70% increase in the use of the railway in recent times so how would the station cope with the extra commuters this size of development would generate?
The junior school planned (KB2) will give 200 more places - for 600 houses - the figures do not add up. Bellamy close was originally planned to be a Senior school for the village but it is more lucrative for developers to produce houses so how will the provision of schooling be guaranteed to match requirements?
As a governor of Hitchin boys school, we have to incorporate an extra classroom per year by 2018 for the extra secondary school student's natural growth has generated. This is only one school that Knebworth pupils are sent to but every school in the area is already been asked to increase the intake - where are places going to be found for the students the new housing would generate? There are no firm plans for access to Secondary Schools and this is already a major problem for Knebworth residents with the current population. KB2 is where the primary school is proposed but is this justified when consideration is given to the noise and pollution levels (highest levels along its length) of the A1M.
As the green belt disappears towards Stevenage there is a loss of character and open views of this village and as the open landscape disappears, loss of productive agricultural land and localised flooding issues will be exaggerated. The field of KB4 has a very long storm drain buried that runs between Stevenage and Datchworth - can this be built on?
There are constraints in the drainage infrastructure connecting Rye Meads near Hoddesdon with major capacity issues regarding sewerage. There are surface water flooding issues from the A1 and this impacts KB2. Water issues are also a problem at KB3 and KB4.
The Plan would bring years of disruption, congestion and a lack of facilities to existing and new residents. It is not fair for Knebworth have a much higher rate of development for Knebworth than other parts of North Hertfordshire. The government policy states any development must be sustainable - Knebworth's current and planned infrastructure would not be able to cope. There is already over demand on trains, schools, roads, healthcare, parking.
The plan cannot be justified as it brings the threat of coalescence between Knebworth, Stevenage and Woolmer Green.
It does not deliver a sustainable solution for Knebworth and does not address local concerns. The lack of infrastructure capacity would render it ineffective. The Plan would bring years of disruption, congestion and a lack of facilities to existing and new residents as Knebworth's current and planned infrastructure would not be able to cope.

SUMMARY
The plan is not positive:
No proper consultation on Site KB4
Knebworth is not a town
Plan does not adequately acknowledge local infrastructure issues
Unsustainable -needs increased infrastructure.
The plan is not justified:
Stevenage West (3100 homes) -a better alternative.
The Plan would bring years of disruption, congestion and a lack of facilities to existing and new Knebworth's residents
The plan results in coalescence between Knebworth, Stevenage, and Woolmer Green.
This plan is not effective but problem generating:
It does not deliver a sustainable solution and lack of infrastructure capacity would render it ineffective

CHANGES
The plan especially KB4, which has not gone through the normal consultation process needs to removed.
The development of the Stevenage West for 3,100 homes need to be implemented to provide all the new housing requirements of the local areas.

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attached

See attached

I am writing to object to the proposed development for Knebworth in the local plan, as detailed in paragraphs 13.183-13.202.
My general objections to the local plan as it affects Knebworth are as follows:
1. Lack of a cohesive strategy which means the plan is not effective. There is no correlation or cohesion between the additional housing and the infrastructure needed to support sustainable growth.

2. The number of houses proposed. The plan proposes 663 dwellings, which would be a 30+% increase in the size of the village. There are existing issues with traffic flow, parking, train and school capacities which would be negatively impacted by an increase in population. In addition, the extra impact of a further 150 homes proposed for Woolmer Green has not been considered.

The negative impact that this additional development would have on the village cannot be justified when the land west of Stevenage is reserved for 3,100 homes.

3. The removal of significant sites of green belt from around Knebworth, contrary to government policy. There are no demonstrable exceptional circumstances detailed that justify the removal of land from the green belt. The green belt contributes significantly to protecting the space between Knebworth and surrounding towns and villages, thereby maintaining the separate identity of Knebworth as a village. With the removal of land from the green belt, there would be increased coalescence between Woolmer Green to the south, Bragbury end to the east and Stevenage to the north.

The impact on the countryside and landscape would be detrimental, and would change Knebworth and its surroundings for ever.

4. The negative impact on highways and other transport. The B197 is used as an overflow for the A1M, and at certain times during the day is already congested. Further development would increase the number of cars on the road and journeys taken, thereby adding to the congestion. As mentioned above, the train capacity at peak times is already compromised, cuts to the service are being proposed by the train company and so an increase in population will inevitably have a negative impact on the service available.

5. Drainage issues. There are already major capacity issues at Rye Meads Sewage Treatment Works. Additional development would add to the capacity issues, not alleviate them.

6. A negative impact on the local economy. There does not appear to be any consideration of the local economy in the Local Plan; there is no proposal for job creation and none of the land proposed for removal from green belt is a set aside or allocated for commercial development. In fact, a significant site in the middle of the village currently used for commercial purposes (KB3 Chas Lowe) is being reallocated to housing, which is the reverse of a local economy or commercial development.

In addition to my general objections above, I will be most affected by development of land at KB4, land east of Knebworth (ID278). I object to the development in this area on the following grounds:

1. First and foremost, the land is green belt. As mentioned above there are no exceptional circumstances that justify the removal of this land from green belt. If it were removed, there would be significant danger of coalescence with Bragbury End and Stevenage. In addition, it would have a very negative impact on the open, picturesque landscape in that area of Knebworth.

2. The road network around the proposed development is insufficient and inappropriate to cope with the increased traffic flow. The roads that would most impacted by the development, namely Watton Road and Swangleys Lane (both restricted width country lanes), St Martins Road (private road) and possibly Oakfields Road are all minor roads, most of which already struggle to cope with modern traffic flows. Additional development would inevitably result in additional vehicles and journeys, thereby compromising the routes further.

3. The land is currently agricultural. If the land were to be removed from the green belt there would be a loss of productive agricultural land, with no proposals to replace this productivity elsewhere.

Knebworth is a thriving village with a strong community spirit. Please don't destroy it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachments

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See attachment

See attachment

See attached

Section 1:

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

Section 4.9 - Policy SP2:

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

Section 4.37 - Policy SP4:

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

Section 4.127:

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

Section 4.162:

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

Section 4.165:

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

Section 5.28 & 5.29:

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

Sections 5.39 to 5.48 and Policy ETC8:

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

Section 6:

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

Section 12 - Policy HE2:

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

Section 13.183 to 13.202 - Knebworth:

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

Ref - Knebworth - KB1 & KB2:

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

Commitment

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

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

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

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

Delivery

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

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

Sustainability

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

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

Opportunity

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

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

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

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

Ref - Knebworth - KB4:

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

See attached

See attachment

See attachment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schools:

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

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

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

Draft is not legally compliant due to lack of consultation when it was decided to include the removal of KB4 from the green belt.

Unsound because the plan is unrealistic regarding the infrastructure needs of Knebworth, in particular the traffic around the junctions of the B197 with the school on Swangleys Lane, the church and post office on St Martin's Road, and the shops along Knebworth High Street.

This concentrated area is the heart of the village - in the long term it needs to be pedestrianised with provision for public transport and a considerable increase in car parking facilities (for the village and the nearby railway station).

Unfortunately the high street on the B197 is a rat-run for the parallel A1M which reduces to 2 lanes from Welwyn heading North. When there is an incident on the A1M, there are queues of traffic from Woolmer Green through Knebworth up to Stevenage.

Attached are photos of the morning traffic in this area on a typical school day (28 November 2016) when the weather is clear and dry and there are no abnormal incidents on the road system. As can be seen, it is already a dangerous situation, heavy traffic going in all directions mixed with children and other pedestrians.

The

The proposed developments of Knebworth are totally disproportionate to a village of it's size. To propose an increase of over 600 new dwellings, without showing a strategic improvement plan of the local infrastructure, shows a clear lack of strategic thought.

There will be a significant strain on local roads, railways, dentist, doctor, library and school with this level of development.

A particular worry is the development to the east of the village in KB4. This will mean that the village will merge with Stevenage and become a suburb of a large town, rather than a rural village. The views from the recreation ground are of open agricultural land and will be completely destroyed by the proposed development. Both Oakfields road and Watton Road are completely inadicate to deal with the increase volume of traffic resulting from the new housing development

There appears to be no overall strategy - lack of consideration of the existing strain on local amenities and traffic congestion is apparent. The infrastructure in knebworth is already wholly inadequate - lack of sufficient school places, long waiting lists for Doctor appointments, severe traffic congestion particularly when the A1 is closed. The suggestion that there are plans for a new surgery, library etc is misleading as the existing ones are being removed.

The amount of proposed new housing will compromise the integrity of 'village' status - Knebworth will become a sprawling suburb of houses supported by inadequate facilities.

KB4 is a recent addition to the plans - this was not mentioned on the previous consultation. The addition of 200 homes will eradicate the narrow boundary of green belt buffer between Stevenage and Knebworth, merging the two. The recreation ground, which serves the whole village, will become surrounded by buildings and rural views enjoyed by all will be lost.
The proposal of a second primary school in the village is divisive and the village cannot cope with extra traffic delivering children to alternative sites.
Why has the Stevenage West proposal been put in reserve when this site is far better equipped to accommodate the extra homes with a decent infrastructure? Why has the proposed development of the brown field site at the Odyssey not been taken into account?

Conservation areas will be compromised.
Knebworth is already a 'squeezed' community with very tight boundaries between Stevenage to the North and East; the A1 to the west and Woolmer Green to the South.