Policy SP1: Sustainable Development in North Hertfordshire
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 5149
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: Mr Wilfred Aspinall
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP1:
- Sustainable development
- The Plan has the environmental heading placed before economic and social. I believe this is not in line with the emphasis set out in the NPPF
- Growth in towns and villages
- Development restricted to village boundary
- Support the plan to review every 5 years
- New Local Plan in 2031
- ONS quota will change
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 5181
Received: 29/11/2016
Respondent: Hertfordshire County Council
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Object to SP1(c): Insufficient school places to meet the need of new development
See attached
Support
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 5210
Received: 29/11/2016
Respondent: Mr and Mrs Ken Ramsey
Number of people: 2
Agent: Moult Walker
Support SP1: Proposed growth of the District's villages
See attached
Support
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 5218
Received: 29/11/2016
Respondent: Messrs Hyde & Durrant
Agent: Moult Walker
Support SP1: Proposed growth of the District's villages.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 5267
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: Letchworth Sustainability Forum
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? Yes
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Support SP1:
- Importance of Neighbourhood Planning and Master Planning
- Para 4.4 Support statement, no change required
- First Garden City
- Building control
- Code of sustainable homes
- Climate change and drought
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 5421
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: Pirton Parish Council
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP1: Endorse recognition of neighbourhood planning but SP1 should set targets.
See attachments
Support
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 5570
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: Picture srl
Agent: Keymer Cavendish Limited
Support SP1
See attached
Support
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 5592
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: Pirton Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group
Give greater encouragement and support to Neighbourhood Planning as a tool to assist effective implementation and to set itself targets in relation to Neighbourhood Planning in policy SP1.
I make this response on behalf of the Pirton Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group.
We have worked closely with the NHDC Planning Policy Team in the development of our draft Neighbourhood Plan to ensure that the Pirton Neighbourhood Plan is in general conformity with the current planning policies and also that it will be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the Proposed Local Plan. We therefore confirm that in our opinion the Proposed Local Plan has been positively prepared, is justified, effective and consistent with National Policy.
The District must plan for significant new housing development to 2031. The process of developing the Pirton Neighbourhood Plan has meant that the Pirton Community. has given considerable thought to housing development here, both in terms of numbers, and but also in terms of type and design. At the time of the Parish Plan in 2013, 36% of the community wanted no further development for the village. Now, the community will support an increase of a minimum of 17% in our housing stock over the period of the proposed Local Plan- provided it is of the type, density and design that the community consultation process of Neighbourhood Planning has identified, and provided applications for planning permission respect our policies in relation to matters such as traffic and transport safety, heritage, biodiversity, and green space. We urge the NHDC to give greater encouragement and support to Neighbourhood Planning as a tool to assist effective implementation and to set itself targets in relation to Neighbourhood Planning in policy SP1.
Traffic levels, and improvements to the infrastructure of our roads, as well as improvements to public transport, will be very important. The amount of planned housing development will make great demands on the road and public transport networks. This must be addressed as a priority if North Herts is not to grind to a halt, or the health and well-being benefits of living in a district full of beautiful countryside are not to be eroded. These are issues of considerable importance to the community of Pirton as reflected in the consultations held during the development of the Neighbourhood Plan for Pirton.
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 5872
Received: 28/11/2016
Respondent: Mrs Linda Green
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP1: No evidence to support claim that villages need housing to maintain long term vitality, 65% of all village growth within Codicote, Knebworth, Barkway and Little Wymondley, villages will be changed, apart from schooling no other improvement in infrastructure. Not sensitive growth.
See attached
Support
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 5915
Received: 24/11/2016
Respondent: Hitchin Town Action Group (HTAG)
Support for SP1:
- proactive approach
- policy needs to be more specific: extent to which local circumstance is reflected in the proposed policies.
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 5923
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: Mr Crispin Mackay
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
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 Object to SP1: National policies not adhered to, no exceptional circumstances, Green Belt Review flawed, GB should prevent sprawl. SA report biased,
Policy of destroying Green Belt to allow urban areas to expand is not sustainable. The vast new areas of Green Belt which have been proposed will result in exactly the same issue next time there is a need to provide more housing. This approach is not sustainable.
I object to policy SP1 and the sustainability report
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.
Support
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 5971
Received: 29/11/2016
Respondent: F and P Property Management
Agent: Rapleys LLP
Support SP1: Support in principle, securing long-term vitality of villages
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 6098
Received: 21/11/2016
Respondent: Rumball Sedgwick
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP1: states that the Plan supports growth and looks to sustain the long-term viability of the District's villages, but that is not always carried through into the subsequent chapters and policies of the plan.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 6234
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: Save The Worlds First Garden City
Number of people: 7
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Object to SP1: Impact upon water environment, traffic, strategy contributes to urban sprawl, high density housing for elderly not considered
See attached
Support
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 6302
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: Hertfordshire County Council
Support SP1: It is clear that NHDC support the principles of sustainable development, the policy is broadly sound
See attached