KB4 Land east of Knebworth

See attachment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have taken this opportunity to write to you to object to the proposed development detailed in paragraphs 13.183 to 13.202 in the local plan for Knebworth.
The objections that I have to the local plan are in relation to Knebworth and are as follows:
Firstly 600+ new residential units is an enormous increase on a village this represents approximately 35%. I do not believe this is a responsible increase. The plan does not address the current limitations on infrastructure, such as
* the roads are at peak times during the day are grid locked, this will get worse and there is no mitigation planned for this.
* lack of parking in the village is a known issue , there is currently not enough space, there is no plan for where additional vehicles will park
* the current primary school is at capacity, there is no plan for how the additional children locating into the village will be educated
* the drainage at the local treatment works is at capacity - there are no mitigating plans for this.
* the access roads to any proposed development to the land referred to as KB4 [ID278] does not have sufficient carriageway width for the increased number of vehicles, this has not been planned for.
My strong objection based upon the above is that this plan has not been thought through and appears to be revolving around more housing and little else that is needed alongside it for people to live.
As having been a commuter to London for the past 16 years, I have personally witnessed the train service going from a regular service where one was pretty much guaranteed a seat to and from Kings Cross to an overcrowded standing room only service.
Back in 2000 the platform at Knebworth in the morning was quiet by comparison to today. Over the past 16 years , the platforms are considerably busier, and to get a comfortable standing space is a luxury - a seat is a rareity indeed. We are told frequently that the network is at capacity, so more trains are not an option to solve this awful situation, adding 600 plus houses in Knebworth, and 150 in neighbouring Woolmer Green [who also use Knebworth station to commute from] will push the situation on the trains to a point where you physically will not be able to get on to trains. This is a very real and worrying prospect. The local plan does not account for this and will seriously impact on many people's ability to get to and from work, thereby affecting livelyhoods.
In addition to the operational side of the village and the associated infrastructure, the land that is being proposed for development is Green Belt. This Green Belt land protects the village and indeed its' identity by preventing it conjoining neighbouring towns and villages, namely Stevenage and Woolmer Green. I believe this is contrary to current Government Policy.
Also I think that bringing land, which could be hundreds of miles away into Green Belt to trade off Green Belt in Hertfordshire is flawed. This is nothing but a cheap conjouring trick to take land which works hard to protect villages in a very developed part of the country, make disappear and reappear hundreds on miles away where urban encroachment is not a risk or a threat. This land is in this current location for a reason which is applicable to its particular geography.
Once this land has been taken out of Green Belt, and is built upon there is no going back, ever.
There also does not appear to be any provision for the development of additional employment as part of the plan. On the contrary, the builders merchant Chas Lowe may be deducted from the community as part of this plan!
Again it just all seems to be residential and no retail / commercial. This also points to this development not having been thought through in a wholistic manner.
Personally I would be most affected by the development to the land known as KB4 [ID278]. With respect to this particular development my objections are as follows.
* This land is green belt - my objections are as mentioned above.
* Village identity will be lost as Stevenage [Bragbury End] will be brought closer to Knebworth
* The roads that would be used to access / egress this site are not currently suitable for 2 way traffic and are currently at over capacity at certain times of the day, additional traffic would merely increase this problem. These roads are Oakfields Road, Swangleys Lane and Watton Road.
* This land is good agricultural land, with the population of the country increasing we cannot afford to lose land such as this
Finally I am not against any development of housing in the Village, but it must be on a scale much smaller than what is currently in the plan. The plan should also be balanced to consider how the current village operates and should be sympathetic and positive to it The current plan is just to construct an enormous number of residential units to sort out one problem but in itself creates many many more.

See attached

Overall strategy:
There is no overall strategy. There are four sites within the village of Knebworth and as each individually does not reach a high enough number of houses there is no strategy. They should be grouped and then the number of houses would trigger a strategy. The plan can not be effective without an overall strategy. If there was a strategy there would be a plan to tackle the issues surrounding the highways and infrastructure needed to support the amount of housing proposed in the plan. It seems deceptive to have four separate sites in one village each individually less than 500 homes so that no overall strategy is required. There must be a strategy before over 500 homes are added to our village.
The plan proposed 663 dwellings which would increase the village size by 31%. The previous plan (from 2 years ago) proposed 200 less homes than this current plan. The issues that were raised when the previous plan was proposed have not been addressed and the proposed number of homes has increased.
I understand there is planning at the Odyssey Gym site to the north of Knebworth for approx. 70-100 homes. This doesn't seem to have been included in the plan for Knebworth though? If there was a proper strategy in place then this would have been taken into account. I also understand that there is a reservation for just over 3,000 homes on land to the west of Stevenage. Stevenage is a town with much better facilities to offer new residents than Knebworth.
Further to this there is a plan for an extra 150 homes in Woolmer Green. Woolmer Green, Knebworth and Stevenage will end up joined together if all the plans in place go through.
Part of the plan is to build properties on the Chas Lowe site. This will change the village centre as this site is currently commercial use. I understand the village centre should be kept for commercial use under policy SP4. This should be developed like the current Putterills/Robert Ellis Court site, with a shop front and then flats above and behind to retain the village commercial centre.
It is really important to note that Please note Knebworth is a village, even though it is referred to as a town in the Plan. The Green Belt land around the village 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.
The plan does not address the drainage issues that the village currently suffers and will be excerbated by any new development. My understanding is that there will be a major capacity issue at Rye Meads Sewage Treatment Works which is yet to be addressed.
The Plan says (13.195) that there are no mitigation requirements regarding transport. However, the Highways Agency raised this when the previous plans were submitted. The two railway bridges at each end of the village are already dangerous due to the current volume of traffic and the narrow roads and pavements. Both bridges only allow one car through at a time (there are no white lines down the middle of the road). The roads under these two bridges are used every day by children going to and from school. An increase in people using these two roads is a huge concern to those of us who regularly use them. I cannot understand how the plan can ignore this.
Furthermore, the high street and the roundabout at the north end of the high street where the current doctors surgery and butchers are, are both known pinch points. Watton Road and Swangley's Lane are both unable to take extra traffic. Watton Road has parking all down one side and speed bumps and Swangleys Lane is a narrow village road. The Highways Agency raised these traffic concerns when the previous plan was submitted and nothing has been done to address this in the current plan.
The plan (13.192) states that much of the traffic in the mornings is caused by secondary school pupils going to school in the car which is 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. The plan offers a solution to this non-problem by offering a new 'through school'. I understand Herts County Council do not plan to make any extra school provision in Knebworth as they do not believe it is required and have said so when previous plans have been proposed. There is anough provision within Stevenage. I also understand a school cannot be built on a site next to a motorway which is what the plan proposes for the KB2 site. It would also involve yet more children using the road under the railway bridge to the south end of the village. A non-problem has been raised and the a non-workable solution to it has been proposed!
Interestingly 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).
Finally, I understand there has to be a consultation for any new site. Site KB4 has not previously undergone any consultation. This is against policy and I understand possibly illegal?

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

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

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

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

See attachment

See attached

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

See attachment

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attachment

See attachment