Policy CGB1: Rural Areas beyond the Green Belt

Showing comments and forms 1 to 11 of 11

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 4051

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Mr David Beatham

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Object to CGB1: Too restrictive, precludes infill plots being developed in Category C settlements

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 4206

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: NHS Property Services Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Objection to CGB1:
- the Royston Hospital site should be removed from the designation Rural Areas Beyond Green Belt
- site considered suitable for redevelopment in the longer term
- NHS requires flexibility in its estate - development of sites and properties for best value is an important component in funding new or improved facilities for public services within an area.
- the SHLAA 2014 update recognises that the site is suitable for delivering residential development if medical use of the site ceased.
- requests amendment of the Policies Map to remove this site from the CGB1 designation

Full text:

See attached

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 4451

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: Beck Developments Ltd

Agent: JWPC Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

Object to CGB1: Restricts development on the edge of Cat A villages

Full text:

See attached

Support

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 5155

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Wilfred Aspinall

Representation:

Support CGB1:
- Extensions into the Green Belt to increase quality of life

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 5192

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Colin Bogie

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Object to CGB1: Absence of restriction on general development within or adjacent to Category A villages or built core of Category B villages, inconsistent with strategic objectives, rationale for changes to current policy framework not explained, Design SPD conflicts with proposed policies, no consideration of heritage assets in village policy

Full text:

See attached

Support

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 5935

Received: 24/11/2016

Respondent: Hitchin Town Action Group (HTAG)

Representation:

Support CGB1:
- support proposed restraint on inappropriate development in rural areas beyond the Green Belt

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 5975

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: F and P Property Management

Agent: Rapleys LLP

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Object to CGB1: Policy should support housing in rural in certain circumstances, particularly to meet housing need.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 6111

Received: 21/11/2016

Respondent: Rumball Sedgwick

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Object to CGB1: Imposition of restrictive Green Belt-type controls in the rural areas, indistinguishable from Green Belt policy

Full text:

See attached

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 6236

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Crispin Mackay

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

Object to CGB1: NPPF policy on importance of Green Belts ignored, One of the five purposes of Green Belts (Urban regeneration) not considered in Green Belt study, Several potential flaws in the Green Belt study highlighted in previous consultations, not preventing sprawl, Green Belt boundary to the east of Luton should be protected, interest of developers should not override Green Belt purposes, coalescence issues, since RSS no justification for Luton growth, Luton is protecting its GB - so should NHDC, issues with GB review methodology, redevelop sites within settlements and outside GB areas first, Luton should be viewed as a historic town in the GB review. GB are important for permanence and openness, SHLAA should not identify GB sites as suitable, Council have apposed East of Luton development previously, Luton figures should be revisited following Brexit, Duty to Cooperate not duty to accept need if no suitable sites. Rushed plan due to Government deadlines, creating new areas of GB will result in the same issues next time contrary to NPPF, moving boundaries a short term fix, water deprived area, traffic, recreation impact - walkers, cyclists, horse riders, ruin Chilterns cycleway, no agreement with Luton BC

Full text:

See attachments (and below)

National policy on Green Belts not adhered to. Does not meet exceptional circumstances.
The vast majority of proposed new dwelling are in current Green Belt. (60% proposed dwellings within green belt despite the fact 2/3 of district land is outside green belt).

One of the five purposes of Green Belts as stated in the National Planning policy framework is "To assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land". The NHDC Green belt review part 1 recognises this in "Assessment against Green belt principles" (paragraph 32 and table 2) However this criteria is not included in Table 5: Assessment of Existing Green Belt. The purpose of the proposed removal of Green Belt to the east of Luton (in Sector 2 EL1 EL2 & EL3) is to meet the wider needs of the Luton housing market area. The destruction of the Green Belt to allow the development of 2100 new sites will effectively result in Luton extending into rural Hertfordshire. This significant number of sites will logically have an effect on the will to and cost effectiveness of recycling derelict and other urban land in Luton. Since urban regeneration is one of the five purposes of a Green Belt I feel this factor should have been included before the report recommended the significant destruction of Green Belt to the east of Luton. I could find no evidence of this having been done in any of the documentation. The assertion in the Green Belt review that "the fifth purpose has not been considered as the other four purposes are all deemed to contribute to urban regeneration" does not really hold water when considering destroying a significant portion of green belt which is currently constraining the spread of urban Luton to the east. The stated purpose of destroying the Green Belt to allow development to the east of Luton is to address housing needs of Luton not NHDC so there should be documentation of the effects this development will have on urban regeneration in Luton.
The green belt review is flawed. Luton is not included as a historic town.
The plan is contrary to national policy to prevent urban sprawl. The plan is not in line with Luton Borough council's statements on importance of Green Belt.

For these reasons I object to the Green Belt review and therefore Policy SP5 which references it.

The creation of vast new areas of Green Belt between Hitchin/Stevenage and Luton will make it increasingly difficult to provide for any future housing need.
The current Green Belts are stopping the current urban areas from spreading. If they are allowed to do so and all the land between them is made new Green Belt then the next time there is a need to provide more housing the only option will be to (again) allow the expansion of these settlements by destroying more Green Belt.
A genuinely plan led solution may see benefit in retaining current Green Belts. This would encourage Urban regeneration (of which there is a lot of land to redevelop in Luton). Further need could be provided by expanding current settlements outside of the Green Belt or creating new settlements such as a new Garden City.

NHDC have not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances required to justify destroying the Green Belt east of Luton.
NHDC in 4.221 reference Sir Michael Heseltines "leave no stone unturned" quote as justification (point 69). The report in question relates to growth and I could find no reference to it justifying destroying Green Belt. I did however find the following quote from Sir Michael Heseltine "It does indeed seem ridiculous that we should be scrabbling around for land in the South East - even contemplating the destruction of the green belt - when such a large and strategically-located area is in such obvious need of regeneration."

The assumptions made in the Draft Sustainability appraisal seem very biased and potentially flawed. In Table 4 What would happen without the plan? to sum up most of what could happen without a local plan "national policy might protect you but we might be able to do things better with a local plan". OK - now where's the table listing what could happen with the proposed local plan? (you're village / hamlet is subsumed into a neighbouring councils town and all the buses taking pupils to school miles away are increasing traffic and CO2 emissions). That outcome is a lot more likely than half the possibilities mentioned in the report. The sustainability appraisal is one long extremely biased piece of scaremongering propaganda and a document so lacking in facts or balanced predictions has no place being included in this process. I object to policy SP1 and the sustainability report.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 6262

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Gladman Developments Limited

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Object to CGB1: Unjustified restrictions on housing development on sustainable sites on the edge of villages

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments: