Policy SP8: Housing

I strongly object to the outline North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011- 2031 especially the sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 which affect the areas of Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green, Tea Green, Copthorne, Rochford Drive, Putteridgebury, Wandon End, Wigmore and Brick kiln Lane, for the following reasons: Please tick all of the issues that concern you (all if necessary!) .The 'New Neighbourhood Planning Infrastructure Bill 2016' states that it supports the Government's ambition to deliver one million new homes, whilst protecting those areas that are valued most, including the Green Belt. This area is Green Belt and the application does not meet the 'Very Special Circumstances' required to build on it as stated in paragraph 80 and 83 of the National Planning Framework and also the House of Commons briefing note on Green Belt. The Green Belt boundaries should not be amended in response to individual planning applications (The National Planning Policy Framework, Paragraph 83).

There are 205 dwellings in Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green and Tea Green currently. An additional 2100 dwellings will be an increase of 1124%. This development is completely out of proportion to all other developments in the district - these villages and communities will cease to exist.

1.Of these additional dwellings 150 are for North Herts, the remaining 1950 are to meet Luton's supposed unmet needs , a number which hasn't been qualified when challenged.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: Crawley Green Road and Eaton Green Road are backing up over 750 metres at their junctions with Airport Way during the rush hour, without the addition of a further 5000+ vehicles. The roads through the airport are often gridlocked and with the growth of passengers at Luton Airport, currently 12.75 million (2015) with a projected increase year on year to 22 million by 2030 this is set to worsen. Stockingstone and A505 suffer equally.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The traffic Survey carried in 2015 was not done to industry standards i.e. for a month and also the results of this survey showed a negligible or nil effect on local congestion when the results, and thus the underpinning of the proposal, were based on a road that doesn't exist, hasn't been proposed and has been stated by the council that there is no money to develop.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: In the shorter term, the projected airport development/business park/light industry, will attract a further 7,000 employees (ref. LBC). The roads cannot cope with this increase in vehicles.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The two country lanes with insufficient passing places which lead out of the site into North Herts are already being used as dangerous rat-runs. This will increase as residents seek to access the M1 via Lilley Bottom and Lilley, and seek to access Hitchin/Stevenage through Offley.

2.The paths and woodlands are used by villagers and people from neighbouring Luton as a leisure area for walking/running/cycling. These will be destroyed despite the national push to encourage people to keep fit.

3.In the presentation of the local plan Councillor Levitt stated that "the development plays a key role in supporting the growth of our economy planning for the right type and number of homes, in the right place to create sustainable communities" How can a development only linking north Herts by two single track lanes be considered as a sustainable community?

4.There is sufficient brown field land in Luton to accommodate 'Luton's Unmet Need' at the same housing density as this proposed development.

5.Teeming wildlife, owl, bats, deer, etc., will be displaced. Wildlife corridors are no substitute

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
Cockernhoe is a very small village and will not be able to function with more people!!
Focus on the houses that have been abandoned and need doing up rather than building more unnecessary houses we do not want on our green belt! It is green belt for a reason!

I strongly object to the outline North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011- 2031 especially the sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 which affect the areas of Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green, Tea Green, Copthorne, Rochford Drive, Putteridgebury, Wandon End, Wigmore and Brick kiln Lane, for the following reasons: Please tick all of the issues that concern you (all if necessary!) .The 'New Neighbourhood Planning Infrastructure Bill 2016' states that it supports the Government's ambition to deliver one million new homes, whilst protecting those areas that are valued most, including the Green Belt. This area is Green Belt and the application does not meet the 'Very Special Circumstances' required to build on it as stated in paragraph 80 and 83 of the National Planning Framework and also the House of Commons briefing note on Green Belt. The Green Belt boundaries should not be amended in response to individual planning applications (The National Planning Policy Framework, Paragraph 83).

There are 205 dwellings in Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green and Tea Green currently. An additional 2100 dwellings will be an increase of 1124%. This development is completely out of proportion to all other developments in the district - these villages and communities will cease to exist.

1.Of these additional dwellings 150 are for North Herts, the remaining 1950 are to meet Luton's supposed unmet needs, a number which hasn't been qualified when challenged.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: Crawley Green Road and Eaton Green Road are backing up over 750 metres at their junctions with Airport Way during the rush hour, without the addition of a further 5000+ vehicles. The roads through the airport are often gridlocked and with the growth of passengers at Luton Airport, currently 12.75 million (2015) with a projected increase year on year to 22 million by 2030 this is set to worsen. Stockingstone and A505 suffer equally.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The traffic Survey carried in 2015 was not done to industry standards i.e. for a month and also the results of this survey showed a negligible or nil effect on local congestion when the results, and thus the underpinning of the proposal, were based on a road that doesn't exist, hasn't been proposed and has been stated by the council that there is no money to develop.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: In the shorter term, the projected airport development/business park/light industry, will attract a further 7,000 employees (ref. LBC). The roads cannot cope with this increase in vehicles.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The two country lanes with insufficient passing places which lead out of the site into North Herts are already being used as dangerous rat-runs. This will increase as residents seek to access the M1 via Lilley Bottom and Lilley, and seek to access Hitchin/Stevenage through Offley.

2.The paths and woodlands are used by villagers and people from neighbouring Luton as a leisure area for walking/running/cycling. These will be destroyed despite the national push to encourage people to keep fit.

3.In the presentation of the local plan Councillor Levitt stated that "the development plays a key role in supporting the growth of our economy planning for the right type and number of homes, in the right place to create sustainable communities" How can a development only linking north Herts by two single track lanes be considered as a sustainable community?

4.There is sufficient brown field land in Luton to accommodate 'Luton's Unmet Need' at the same housing density as this proposed development.

5.Teeming wildlife, owl, bats, deer, etc., will be displaced. Wildlife corridors are no substitute

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
The houses will be built over my horses stables and I have been at that stable for over 15 years and because of this we will have to re locate the horses and there isn't enough farms around Cockernhoe to rehome them all.

The roads will be busy causing lots of traffic, and more pollution ruining what little green belt we have left in this world.

There are loads of houses that are run down and no one is living in them you need to focus on those first before building on our wonderful country side.

I strongly object to the outline North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011- 2031 especially the sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 which affect the areas of Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green, Tea Green, Copthorne, Rochford Drive, Putteridgebury, Wandon End, Wigmore and Brick kiln Lane, for the following reasons: Please tick all of the issues that concern you (all if necessary!) .The 'New Neighbourhood Planning Infrastructure Bill 2016' states that it supports the Government's ambition to deliver one million new homes, whilst protecting those areas that are valued most, including the Green Belt. This area is Green Belt and the application does not meet the 'Very Special Circumstances' required to build on it as stated in paragraph 80 and 83 of the National Planning Framework and also the House of Commons briefing note on Green Belt. The Green Belt boundaries should not be amended in response to individual planning applications (The National Planning Policy Framework, Paragraph 83).

There are 205 dwellings in Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green and Tea Green currently. An additional 2100 dwellings will be an increase of 1124%. This development is completely out of proportion to all other developments in the district - these villages and communities will cease to exist.

1.Of these additional dwellings 150 are for North Herts, the remaining 1950 are to meet Luton's supposed unmet needs , a number which hasn't been qualified when challenged.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: Crawley Green Road and Eaton Green Road are backing up over 750 metres at their junctions with Airport Way during the rush hour, without the addition of a further 5000+ vehicles. The roads through the airport are often gridlocked and with the growth of passengers at Luton Airport, currently 12.75 million (2015) with a projected increase year on year to 22 million by 2030 this is set to worsen. Stockingstone and A505 suffer equally.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: In the shorter term, the projected airport development/business park/light industry, will attract a further 7,000 employees (ref. LBC). The roads cannot cope with this increase in vehicles.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The two country lanes with insufficient passing places which lead out of the site into North Herts are already being used as dangerous rat-runs. This will increase as residents seek to access the M1 via Lilley Bottom and Lilley, and seek to access Hitchin/Stevenage through Offley.

2.The paths and woodlands are used by villagers and people from neighbouring Luton as a leisure area for walking/running/cycling. These will be destroyed despite the national push to encourage people to keep fit.

3.In the presentation of the local plan Councillor Levitt stated that "the development plays a key role in supporting the growth of our economy planning for the right type and number of homes, in the right place to create sustainable communities" How can a development only linking north Herts by two single track lanes be considered as a sustainable community?

4.There is sufficient brown field land in Luton to accommodate 'Luton's Unmet Need' at the same housing density as this proposed development.

5.Teeming wildlife, owl, bats, deer, etc., will be displaced. Wildlife corridors are no substitute

I strongly object to the outline North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011- 2031 especially the sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 which affect the areas of Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green, Tea Green, Copthorne, Rochford Drive, Putteridgebury, Wandon End, Wigmore and Brick kiln Lane, for the following reasons: Please tick all of the issues that concern you (all if necessary!) .The 'New Neighbourhood Planning Infrastructure Bill 2016' states that it supports the Government's ambition to deliver one million new homes, whilst protecting those areas that are valued most, including the Green Belt. This area is Green Belt and the application does not meet the 'Very Special Circumstances' required to build on it as stated in paragraph 80 and 83 of the National Planning Framework and also the House of Commons briefing note on Green Belt. The Green Belt boundaries should not be amended in response to individual planning applications (The National Planning Policy Framework, Paragraph 83).

There are 205 dwellings in Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green and Tea Green currently. An additional 2100 dwellings will be an increase of 1124%. This development is completely out of proportion to all other developments in the district - these villages and communities will cease to exist.

1.Of these additional dwellings 150 are for North Herts, the remaining 1950 are to meet Luton's supposed unmet needs, a number which hasn't been qualified when challenged.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: Crawley Green Road and Eaton Green Road are backing up over 750 metres at their junctions with Airport Way during the rush hour, without the addition of a further 5000+ vehicles. The roads through the airport are often gridlocked and with the growth of passengers at Luton Airport, currently 12.75 million (2015) with a projected increase year on year to 22 million by 2030 this is set to worsen. Stockingstone and A505 suffer equally.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The traffic Survey carried in 2015 was not done to industry standards i.e. for a month and also the results of this survey showed a negligible or nil effect on local congestion when the results, and thus the underpinning of the proposal, were based on a road that doesn't exist, hasn't been proposed and has been stated by the council that there is no money to develop.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: In the shorter term, the projected airport development/business park/light industry, will attract a further 7,000 employees (ref. LBC). The roads cannot cope with this increase in vehicles.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The two country lanes with insufficient passing places which lead out of the site into North Herts are already being used as dangerous rat-runs. This will increase as residents seek to access the M1 via Lilley Bottom and Lilley, and seek to access Hitchin/Stevenage through Offley.

2.The paths and woodlands are used by villagers and people from neighbouring Luton as a leisure area for walking/running/cycling. These will be destroyed despite the national push to encourage people to keep fit.

3.In the presentation of the local plan Councillor Levitt stated that "the development plays a key role in supporting the growth of our economy planning for the right type and number of homes, in the right place to create sustainable communities" How can a development only linking north Herts by two single track lanes be considered as a sustainable community?

4.There is sufficient brown field land in Luton to accommodate 'Luton's Unmet Need' at the same housing density as this proposed development.

5.Teeming wildlife, owl, bats, deer, etc., will be displaced. Wildlife corridors are no substitute

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
Green belt IS green belt! Once breached, a precedent is set and will be followed. Green Belt is what it was designed to be, a buffer between town and countryside. Attempts to shift the Green Belt borders are a quick fix for councils seeking fulfilment for housing quotas and greedy and unscrupulous developers who are only interested in profit.
The area in question is surrounded by single track rural roads that will be rat run to a worse degree than they are already. East Luton has a traffic problem already and those who would live in this new development would use rural roads to avoid this and gain access to routes to the A1 and local towns. This will be catastrophic and the result will be damage to the lives of those whose villages are along those routes. Creating homes for people is a necessity but not at the expense of others quality of life. That is wrong!! Morally wrong. I have lived in this area for 30 years plus and value my village, the countryside and the wild life around it. This development will change this forever. And, on the subject of wild life, this development will rob the herds of deer, birds and small mammals of their habitat, and the rat running through the lanes will result in the deaths of many of these creatures by town dwellers who have little understanding and little care for these unfortunate animals. We witness this every day here already and that will increase by a huge amount when people drive these small lanes in the way that they do now. So tragic and so wrong.
I whole heartedly object to this development and the damage that it will cause. This is a threat to my quality of life and that of many others that live in this beautiful countryside that you seek to turn into an extension of Luton and thus destroy.

I strongly object to the outline North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011- 2031 especially the sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 which affect the areas of Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green, Tea Green, Copthorne, Rochford Drive, Putteridgebury, Wandon End, Wigmore and Brick kiln Lane, for the following reasons: Please tick all of the issues that concern you (all if necessary!) .The 'New Neighbourhood Planning Infrastructure Bill 2016' states that it supports the Government's ambition to deliver one million new homes, whilst protecting those areas that are valued most, including the Green Belt. This area is Green Belt and the application does not meet the 'Very Special Circumstances' required to build on it as stated in paragraph 80 and 83 of the National Planning Framework and also the House of Commons briefing note on Green Belt. The Green Belt boundaries should not be amended in response to individual planning applications (The National Planning Policy Framework, Paragraph 83).

There are 205 dwellings in Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green and Tea Green currently. An additional 2100 dwellings will be an increase of 1124%. This development is completely out of proportion to all other developments in the district - these villages and communities will cease to exist.

1.Of these additional dwellings 150 are for North Herts, the remaining 1950 are to meet Luton's supposed unmet needs , a number which hasn't been qualified when challenged.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: Crawley Green Road and Eaton Green Road are backing up over 750 metres at their junctions with Airport Way during the rush hour, without the addition of a further 5000+ vehicles. The roads through the airport are often gridlocked and with the growth of passengers at Luton Airport, currently 12.75 million (2015) with a projected increase year on year to 22 million by 2030 this is set to worsen. Stockingstone and A505 suffer equally.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The two country lanes with insufficient passing places which lead out of the site into North Herts are already being used as dangerous rat-runs. This will increase as residents seek to access the M1 via Lilley Bottom and Lilley, and seek to access Hitchin/Stevenage through Offley.

2.The paths and woodlands are used by villagers and people from neighbouring Luton as a leisure area for walking/running/cycling. These will be destroyed despite the national push to encourage people to keep fit.

3.In the presentation of the local plan Councillor Levitt stated that "the development plays a key role in supporting the growth of our economy planning for the right type and number of homes, in the right place to create sustainable communities" How can a development only linking north Herts by two single track lanes be considered as a sustainable community?

4.There is sufficient brown field land in Luton to accommodate 'Luton's Unmet Need' at the same housing density as this proposed development.

5.Teeming wildlife, owl, bats, deer, etc., will be displaced. Wildlife corridors are no substitute

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
All of the benefits of this development will go to North Hertfordshire Council the land owners and developers. There are no advantages for the Borough of Luton and residents, who will have their facilities and infrastructure overwhelmed; and not a penny in council tax revenue. If this land were ever to be developed, it would be fairer to allow Luton Borough Council to purchase the land and make the appropriate development, within its own boundaries.

I strongly object to the outline North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011- 2031 especially the sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 which affect the areas of Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green, Tea Green, Copthorne, Rochford Drive, Putteridgebury, Wandon End, Wigmore and Brick kiln Lane, for the following reasons: Please tick all of the issues that concern you (all if necessary!) .The 'New Neighbourhood Planning Infrastructure Bill 2016' states that it supports the Government's ambition to deliver one million new homes, whilst protecting those areas that are valued most, including the Green Belt. This area is Green Belt and the application does not meet the 'Very Special Circumstances' required to build on it as stated in paragraph 80 and 83 of the National Planning Framework and also the House of Commons briefing note on Green Belt. The Green Belt boundaries should not be amended in response to individual planning applications (The National Planning Policy Framework, Paragraph 83).

There are 205 dwellings in Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green and Tea Green currently. An additional 2100 dwellings will be an increase of 1124%. This development is completely out of proportion to all other developments in the district - these villages and communities will cease to exist.

1.Of these additional dwellings 150 are for North Herts, the remaining 1950 are to meet Luton's supposed unmet needs, a number which hasn't been qualified when challenged.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: Crawley Green Road and Eaton Green Road are backing up over 750 metres at their junctions with Airport Way during the rush hour, without the addition of a further 5000+ vehicles. The roads through the airport are often gridlocked and with the growth of passengers at Luton Airport, currently 12.75 million (2015) with a projected increase year on year to 22 million by 2030 this is set to worsen. Stockingstone and A505 suffer equally.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The traffic Survey carried in 2015 was not done to industry standards i.e. for a month and also the results of this survey showed a negligible or nil effect on local congestion when the results, and thus the underpinning of the proposal, were based on a road that doesn't exist, hasn't been proposed and has been stated by the council that there is no money to develop.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: In the shorter term, the projected airport development/business park/light industry, will attract a further 7,000 employees (ref. LBC). The roads cannot cope with this increase in vehicles.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The two country lanes with insufficient passing places which lead out of the site into North Herts are already being used as dangerous rat-runs. This will increase as residents seek to access the M1 via Lilley Bottom and Lilley, and seek to access Hitchin/Stevenage through Offley.

2.The paths and woodlands are used by villagers and people from neighbouring Luton as a leisure area for walking/running/cycling. These will be destroyed despite the national push to encourage people to keep fit.

3.In the presentation of the local plan Councillor Levitt stated that "the development plays a key role in supporting the growth of our economy planning for the right type and number of homes, in the right place to create sustainable communities" How can a development only linking north Herts by two single track lanes be considered as a sustainable community?

4.There is sufficient brown field land in Luton to accommodate 'Luton's Unmet Need' at the same housing density as this proposed development.

5.Teeming wildlife, owl, bats, deer, etc., will be displaced. Wildlife corridors are no substitute

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
My understanding is that green belt land was created for a very specific purpose - to prevent urban sprawl. This development is the very antithesis of that principle.

I fail to understand how green belt can only be green belt until someone decides to build on it. Surely that doesn't make sense.

I believe that this area must be preserved as green space to benefit all the people who live in the surrounding area, especially the villages. Most especially, we must protect all the wildlife that lives there. Our countryside must be looked after at all costs and protected for future generations. If we lose it, it will never be replaced.

I strongly object to the outline North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011- 2031 especially the sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 which affect the areas of Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green, Tea Green, Copthorne, Rochford Drive, Putteridgebury, Wandon End, Wigmore and Brick kiln Lane, for the following reasons: Please tick all of the issues that concern you (all if necessary!) .The 'New Neighbourhood Planning Infrastructure Bill 2016' states that it supports the Government's ambition to deliver one million new homes, whilst protecting those areas that are valued most, including the Green Belt. This area is Green Belt and the application does not meet the 'Very Special Circumstances' required to build on it as stated in paragraph 80 and 83 of the National Planning Framework and also the House of Commons briefing note on Green Belt. The Green Belt boundaries should not be amended in response to individual planning applications (The National Planning Policy Framework, Paragraph 83).

There are 205 dwellings in Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green and Tea Green currently. An additional 2100 dwellings will be an increase of 1124%. This development is completely out of proportion to all other developments in the district - these villages and communities will cease to exist.

1.Of these additional dwellings 150 are for North Herts, the remaining 1950 are to meet Luton's supposed unmet needs, a number which hasn't been qualified when challenged.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: .->Crawley Green Road and Eaton Green Road are backing up over 750 metres at their junctions with Airport Way during the rush hour, without the addition of a further 5000+ vehicles. The roads through the airport are often gridlocked and with the growth of passengers at Luton Airport, currently 12.75 million (2015) with a projected increase year on year to 22 million by 2030 this is set to worsen. Stockingstone and A505 suffer equally.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The traffic Survey carried in 2015 was not done to industry standards i.e. for a month and also the results of this survey showed a negligible or nil effect on local congestion when the results, and thus the underpinning of the proposal, were based on a road that doesn't exist, hasn't been proposed and has been stated by the council that there is no money to develop.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: In the shorter term, the projected airport development / business park / light industry, will attract a further 7,000 employees (ref. LBC). The roads cannot cope with this increase in vehicles.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The two country lanes with insufficient passing places which lead out of the site into North Herts are already being used as dangerous rat-runs. This will increase as residents seek to access the M1 via Lilley Bottom and Lilley, and seek to access Hitchin/Stevenage through Offley.

2.The paths and woodlands are used by villagers and people from neighbouring Luton as a leisure area for walking/running/cycling. These will be destroyed despite the national push to encourage people to keep fit.

3.In the presentation of the local plan Councillor Levitt stated that "the development plays a key role in supporting the growth of our economy planning for the right type and number of homes, in the right place to create sustainable communities" How can a development only linking north Herts by two single track lanes be considered as a sustainable community?

4.There is sufficient brown field land in Luton to accommodate 'Luton's Unmet Need' at the same housing density as this proposed development.

5.Teeming wildlife, owl, bats, deer, etc., will be displaced. Wildlife corridors are no substitute

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
The significant impact this will have on the value of housing already in this area.

I strongly object to the outline North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011- 2031 especially the sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 which affect the areas of Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green, Tea Green, Copthorne, Rochford Drive, Putteridgebury, Wandon End, Wigmore and Brick kiln Lane, for the following reasons: Please tick all of the issues that concern you (all if necessary!) .The 'New Neighbourhood Planning Infrastructure Bill 2016' states that it supports the Government's ambition to deliver one million new homes, whilst protecting those areas that are valued most, including the Green Belt. This area is Green Belt and the application does not meet the 'Very Special Circumstances' required to build on it as stated in paragraph 80 and 83 of the National Planning Framework and also the House of Commons briefing note on Green Belt. The Green Belt boundaries should not be amended in response to individual planning applications (The National Planning Policy Framework, Paragraph 83).

There are 205 dwellings in Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green and Tea Green currently. An additional 2100 dwellings will be an increase of 1124%. This development is completely out of proportion to all other developments in the district - these villages and communities will cease to exist.

1.Of these additional dwellings 150 are for North Herts, the remaining 1950 are to meet Luton's supposed unmet needs, a number which hasn't been qualified when challenged.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: Crawley Green Road and Eaton Green Road are backing up over 750 metres at their junctions with Airport Way during the rush hour, without the addition of a further 5000+ vehicles. The roads through the airport are often gridlocked and with the growth of passengers at Luton Airport, currently 12.75 million (2015) with a projected increase year on year to 22 million by 2030 this is set to worsen. Stockingstone and A505 suffer equally.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The traffic Survey carried in 2015 was not done to industry standards i.e. for a month and also the results of this survey showed a negligible or nil effect on local congestion when the results, and thus the underpinning of the proposal, were based on a road that doesn't exist, hasn't been proposed and has been stated by the council that there is no money to develop.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: In the shorter term, the projected airport development / business park / light industry, will attract a further 7,000 employees (ref. LBC). The roads cannot cope with this increase in vehicles.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The two country lanes with insufficient passing places which lead out of the site into North Herts are already being used as dangerous rat-runs. This will increase as residents seek to access the M1 via Lilley Bottom and Lilley, and seek to access Hitchin/Stevenage through Offley.

2.The paths and woodlands are used by villagers and people from neighbouring Luton as a leisure area for walking/running/cycling. These will be destroyed despite the national push to encourage people to keep fit.

3.In the presentation of the local plan Councillor Levitt stated that "the development plays a key role in supporting the growth of our economy planning for the right type and number of homes, in the right place to create sustainable communities" How can a development only linking north Herts by two single track lanes be considered as a sustainable community?

4.There is sufficient brown field land in Luton to accommodate 'Luton's Unmet Need' at the same housing density as this proposed development.

5.Teeming wildlife, owl, bats, deer, etc., will be displaced. Wildlife corridors are no substitute

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
There is far too much traffic around the Stopsley/airport area now i dread to think what it would be like with the proposed plans.

I strongly object to the outline North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011- 2031 especially the sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 which affect the areas of Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green, Tea Green, Copthorne, Rochford Drive, Putteridgebury, Wandon End, Wigmore and Brick kiln Lane, for the following reasons: Please tick all of the issues that concern you (all if necessary!) .The 'New Neighbourhood Planning Infrastructure Bill 2016' states that it supports the Government's ambition to deliver one million new homes, whilst protecting those areas that are valued most, including the Green Belt. This area is Green Belt and the application does not meet the 'Very Special Circumstances' required to build on it as stated in paragraph 80 and 83 of the National Planning Framework and also the House of Commons briefing note on Green Belt. The Green Belt boundaries should not be amended in response to individual planning applications (The National Planning Policy Framework, Paragraph 83).

There are 205 dwellings in Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green and Tea Green currently. An additional 2100 dwellings will be an increase of 1124%. This development is completely out of proportion to all other developments in the district - these villages and communities will cease to exist.

1.Of these additional dwellings 150 are for North Herts, the remaining 1950 are to meet Luton's supposed unmet needs, a number which hasn't been qualified when challenged.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: Crawley Green Road and Eaton Green Road are backing up over 750 metres at their junctions with Airport Way during the rush hour, without the addition of a further 5000+ vehicles. The roads through the airport are often gridlocked and with the growth of passengers at Luton Airport, currently 12.75 million (2015) with a projected increase year on year to 22 million by 2030 this is set to worsen. Stockingstone and A505 suffer equally.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The traffic Survey carried in 2015 was not done to industry standards i.e. for a month and also the results of this survey showed a negligible or nil effect on local congestion when the results, and thus the underpinning of the proposal, were based on a road that doesn't exist, hasn't been proposed and has been stated by the council that there is no money to develop.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: In the shorter term, the projected airport development/business park/light industry, will attract a further 7,000 employees (ref. LBC). The roads cannot cope with this increase in vehicles.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The two country lanes with insufficient passing places which lead out of the site into North Herts are already being used as dangerous rat-runs. This will increase as residents seek to access the M1 via Lilley Bottom and Lilley, and seek to access Hitchin/Stevenage through Offley.

2.The paths and woodlands are used by villagers and people from neighbouring Luton as a leisure area for walking/running/cycling. These will be destroyed despite the national push to encourage people to keep fit.

3.In the presentation of the local plan Councillor Levitt stated that "the development plays a key role in supporting the growth of our economy planning for the right type and number of homes, in the right place to create sustainable communities" How can a development only linking north Herts by two single track lanes be considered as a sustainable community?

4.There is sufficient brown field land in Luton to accommodate 'Luton's Unmet Need' at the same housing density as this proposed development.

5.Teeming wildlife, owl, bats, deer, etc., will be displaced. Wildlife corridors are no substitute

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
The access roads from STOPSLEY/ WIGMORE to the airport, LUTON town centre or M1 motorway are constantly one long traffic jam therefore with the proposed amount of housing etc being planned it will be bedlam.

I strongly object to the outline North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011- 2031 especially the sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 which affect the areas of Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green, Tea Green, Copthorne, Rochford Drive, Putteridgebury, Wandon End, Wigmore and Brick kiln Lane, for the following reasons: Please tick all of the issues that concern you (all if necessary!) .The 'New Neighbourhood Planning Infrastructure Bill 2016' states that it supports the Government's ambition to deliver one million new homes, whilst protecting those areas that are valued most, including the Green Belt. This area is Green Belt and the application does not meet the 'Very Special Circumstances' required to build on it as stated in paragraph 80 and 83 of the National Planning Framework and also the House of Commons briefing note on Green Belt. The Green Belt boundaries should not be amended in response to individual planning applications (The National Planning Policy Framework, Paragraph 83).

There are 205 dwellings in Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green and Tea Green currently. An additional 2100 dwellings will be an increase of 1124%. This development is completely out of proportion to all other developments in the district - these villages and communities will cease to exist.

1.Of these additional dwellings 150 are for North Herts, the remaining 1950 are to meet Luton's supposed unmet needs, a number which hasn't been qualified when challenged.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: Crawley Green Road and Eaton Green Road are backing up over 750 metres at their junctions with Airport Way during the rush hour, without the addition of a further 5000+ vehicles. The roads through the airport are often gridlocked and with the growth of passengers at Luton Airport, currently 12.75 million (2015) with a projected increase year on year to 22 million by 2030 this is set to worsen. Stockingstone and A505 suffer equally.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The traffic Survey carried in 2015 was not done to industry standards i.e. for a month and also the results of this survey showed a negligible or nil effect on local congestion when the results, and thus the underpinning of the proposal, were based on a road that doesn't exist, hasn't been proposed and has been stated by the council that there is no money to develop.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: In the shorter term, the projected airport development/business park/light industry, will attract a further 7,000 employees (ref. LBC). The roads cannot cope with this increase in vehicles.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The two country lanes with insufficient passing places which lead out of the site into North Herts are already being used as dangerous rat-runs. This will increase as residents seek to access the M1 via Lilley Bottom and Lilley, and seek to access Hitchin/Stevenage through Offley.

2.The paths and woodlands are used by villagers and people from neighbouring Luton as a leisure area for walking/running/cycling. These will be destroyed despite the national push to encourage people to keep fit.

3.In the presentation of the local plan Councillor Levitt stated that "the development plays a key role in supporting the growth of our economy planning for the right type and number of homes, in the right place to create sustainable communities" How can a development only linking north Herts by two single track lanes be considered as a sustainable community?

4.There is sufficient brown field land in Luton to accommodate 'Luton's Unmet Need' at the same housing density as this proposed development.

5.Teeming wildlife, owl, bats, deer, etc., will be displaced. Wildlife corridors are no substitute

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
I have lived in this area for 25 years. I can confirm without a doubt, that the increase in traffic from any of the proposed development sites will be a nightmare.
Already, the Lilley Bottom Road which will take the brunt of this new development, is a rat run due to increase in traffic generally, and those who seek a 'short cut' from the A1 at Hitchin or Welwyn to get to the north side of Luton or to the M1 or airport. Modern sat nav technology, encourages those who would not normally dream of taking back routes, to slavishly follow it. Lilley Bottom is single track along the largest percentage of its length. It is narrow and dangerous. Existing users who use it at rush hour being mostly town dwellers, drive it at ridiculous speed and recklessly. The volume of traffic destroys the roads and the banks are being eroded at an alarming rate and the damage is cheaply patched only to appear again in a matter of weeks. The devastation to wildlife can be seen at any time as a result of traffic. Corpses of game birds, rabbits and hares are all too often littered along its length. To add to the smaller birds and mammals, there are significant herds (20 -30 animals) of fallow and roe deer, muntjac and badgers. All have been killed on the Lilley Bottom and the roads that lead to and from it. When the Lilley Bottom becomes congested, then people will rat run through the small villages and destroy their quality of life. All roads surrounding this development are single track. Take it please from someone who lives here and has watched this problem get worse over the years. What you propose is going to cause so many problems. And we have not even touched on the demands on local infrastructure and education and health!
Aside from the local roads, the volume of traffic around East of Luton is already too much for the existing infrastructure. It is absolutely atrocious. And you want to add more?!
The airport development blunders on with the threat of more traffic and pollution to add to the already chaotic situation. Further there is the new massive development started on the old Vauxhall passenger car plant for new homes and businesses plus a retail park.
Aside from the traffic generated post development, what about the construction traffic? Inevitably that traffic will end up on the rural roads when other routes are blocked. Sub contractors invariably are working to a time schedule for deliveries with penalties and will think nothing of ignoring the fact they should obey the signs that say no construction traffic.
In a word, the proposals are pure MADNESS! And the loss of Green Belt a tragedy and will set a precedent. Please drop this now.

I strongly object to the outline North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011- 2031 especially the sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 which affect the areas of Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green, Tea Green, Copthorne, Rochford Drive, Putteridgebury, Wandon End, Wigmore and Brick kiln Lane, for the following reasons: Please tick all of the issues that concern you (all if necessary!) .The 'New Neighbourhood Planning Infrastructure Bill 2016' states that it supports the Government's ambition to deliver one million new homes, whilst protecting those areas that are valued most, including the Green Belt. This area is Green Belt and the application does not meet the 'Very Special Circumstances' required to build on it as stated in paragraph 80 and 83 of the National Planning Framework and also the House of Commons briefing note on Green Belt. The Green Belt boundaries should not be amended in response to individual planning applications (The National Planning Policy Framework, Paragraph 83).

There are 205 dwellings in Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green and Tea Green currently. An additional 2100 dwellings will be an increase of 1124%. This development is completely out of proportion to all other developments in the district - these villages and communities will cease to exist.

1.Of these additional dwellings 150 are for North Herts, the remaining 1950 are to meet Luton's supposed unmet needs, a number which hasn't been qualified when challenged.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: Crawley Green Road and Eaton Green Road are backing up over 750 metres at their junctions with Airport Way during the rush hour, without the addition of a further 5000+ vehicles. The roads through the airport are often gridlocked and with the growth of passengers at Luton Airport, currently 12.75 million (2015) with a projected increase year on year to 22 million by 2030 this is set to worsen. Stockingstone and A505 suffer equally.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The traffic Survey carried in 2015 was not done to industry standards i.e. for a month and also the results of this survey showed a negligible or nil effect on local congestion when the results, and thus the underpinning of the proposal, were based on a road that doesn't exist, hasn't been proposed and has been stated by the council that there is no money to develop.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: In the shorter term, the projected airport development/business park/light industry, will attract a further 7,000 employees (ref. LBC). The roads cannot cope with this increase in vehicles.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The two country lanes with insufficient passing places which lead out of the site into North Herts are already being used as dangerous rat-runs. This will increase as residents seek to access the M1 via Lilley Bottom and Lilley, and seek to access Hitchin/Stevenage through Offley.

2.The paths and woodlands are used by villagers and people from neighbouring Luton as a leisure area for walking/running/cycling. These will be destroyed despite the national push to encourage people to keep fit.

3.In the presentation of the local plan Councillor Levitt stated that "the development plays a key role in supporting the growth of our economy planning for the right type and number of homes, in the right place to create sustainable communities" How can a development only linking north Herts by two single track lanes be considered as a sustainable community?

4.There is sufficient brown field land in Luton to accommodate 'Luton's Unmet Need' at the same housing density as this proposed development.

5.Teeming wildlife, owl, bats, deer, etc., will be displaced. Wildlife corridors are no substitute

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
This development will place unserviceable additional strain (i.e. emergency services, doctors, dentist, elderly care etc...) on essential local services, that are already stretched to capacity.

I strongly object to the outline North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011- 2031 especially the sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 which affect the areas of Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green, Tea Green, Copthorne, Rochford Drive, Putteridgebury, Wandon End, Wigmore and Brick kiln Lane, for the following reasons: Please tick all of the issues that concern you (all if necessary!) .The 'New Neighbourhood Planning Infrastructure Bill 2016' states that it supports the Government's ambition to deliver one million new homes, whilst protecting those areas that are valued most, including the Green Belt. This area is Green Belt and the application does not meet the 'Very Special Circumstances' required to build on it as stated in paragraph 80 and 83 of the National Planning Framework and also the House of Commons briefing note on Green Belt. The Green Belt boundaries should not be amended in response to individual planning applications (The National Planning Policy Framework, Paragraph 83).

There are 205 dwellings in Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green and Tea Green currently. An additional 2100 dwellings will be an increase of 1124%. This development is completely out of proportion to all other developments in the district - these villages and communities will cease to exist.

1.Of these additional dwellings 150 are for North Herts, the remaining 1950 are to meet Luton's supposed unmet needs, a number which hasn't been qualified when challenged.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: Crawley Green Road and Eaton Green Road are backing up over 750 metres at their junctions with Airport Way during the rush hour, without the addition of a further 5000+ vehicles. The roads through the airport are often gridlocked and with the growth of passengers at Luton Airport, currently 12.75 million (2015) with a projected increase year on year to 22 million by 2030 this is set to worsen. Stockingstone and A505 suffer equally.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The traffic Survey carried in 2015 was not done to industry standards i.e. for a month and also the results of this survey showed a negligible or nil effect on local congestion when the results, and thus the underpinning of the proposal, were based on a road that doesn't exist, hasn't been proposed and has been stated by the council that there is no money to develop.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: In the shorter term, the projected airport development/business park/light industry, will attract a further 7,000 employees (ref. LBC). The roads cannot cope with this increase in vehicles.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The two country lanes with insufficient passing places which lead out of the site into North Herts are already being used as dangerous rat-runs. This will increase as residents seek to access the M1 via Lilley Bottom and Lilley, and seek to access Hitchin/Stevenage through Offley.

2.The paths and woodlands are used by villagers and people from neighbouring Luton as a leisure area for walking/running/cycling. These will be destroyed despite the national push to encourage people to keep fit.

3.In the presentation of the local plan Councillor Levitt stated that "the development plays a key role in supporting the growth of our economy planning for the right type and number of homes, in the right place to create sustainable communities" How can a development only linking north Herts by two single track lanes be considered as a sustainable community?

4.There is sufficient brown field land in Luton to accommodate 'Luton's Unmet Need' at the same housing density as this proposed development.

5.Teeming wildlife, owl, bats, deer, etc., will be displaced. Wildlife corridors are no substitute

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
This is not only wanton destruction of Green Belt countryside, it seems to me also a wholly impractical location. Surely new houses should be built (in reasonable numbers only) where the infrastructure can support them. There is huge road building underway to create the new M1/A5 link road-a much better location for a new development

I strongly object to the outline North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011- 2031 especially the sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 which affect the areas of Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green, Tea Green, Copthorne, Rochford Drive, Putteridgebury, Wandon End, Wigmore and Brick kiln Lane, for the following reasons: Please tick all of the issues that concern you (all if necessary!) .The 'New Neighbourhood Planning Infrastructure Bill 2016' states that it supports the Government's ambition to deliver one million new homes, whilst protecting those areas that are valued most, including the Green Belt. This area is Green Belt and the application does not meet the 'Very Special Circumstances' required to build on it as stated in paragraph 80 and 83 of the National Planning Framework and also the House of Commons briefing note on Green Belt. The Green Belt boundaries should not be amended in response to individual planning applications (The National Planning Policy Framework, Paragraph 83).

There are 205 dwellings in Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green and Tea Green currently. An additional 2100 dwellings will be an increase of 1124%. This development is completely out of proportion to all other developments in the district - these villages and communities will cease to exist.

1.Of these additional dwellings 150 are for North Herts, the remaining 1950 are to meet Luton's supposed unmet needs, a number which hasn't been qualified when challenged.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: Crawley Green Road and Eaton Green Road are backing up over 750 metres at their junctions with Airport Way during the rush hour, without the addition of a further 5000+ vehicles. The roads through the airport are often gridlocked and with the growth of passengers at Luton Airport, currently 12.75 million (2015) with a projected increase year on year to 22 million by 2030 this is set to worsen. Stockingstone and A505 suffer equally.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The traffic Survey carried in 2015 was not done to industry standards i.e. for a month and also the results of this survey showed a negligible or nil effect on local congestion when the results, and thus the underpinning of the proposal, were based on a road that doesn't exist, hasn't been proposed and has been stated by the council that there is no money to develop.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: In the shorter term, the projected airport development/business park/light industry, will attract a further 7,000 employees (ref. LBC). The roads cannot cope with this increase in vehicles.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The two country lanes with insufficient passing places which lead out of the site into North Herts are already being used as dangerous rat-runs. This will increase as residents seek to access the M1 via Lilley Bottom and Lilley, and seek to access Hitchin/Stevenage through Offley.

2.The paths and woodlands are used by villagers and people from neighbouring Luton as a leisure area for walking/running/cycling. These will be destroyed despite the national push to encourage people to keep fit.

3.In the presentation of the local plan Councillor Levitt stated that "the development plays a key role in supporting the growth of our economy planning for the right type and number of homes, in the right place to create sustainable communities" How can a development only linking north Herts by two single track lanes be considered as a sustainable community?

4.There is sufficient brown field land in Luton to accommodate 'Luton's Unmet Need' at the same housing density as this proposed development.

5.Teeming wildlife, owl, bats, deer, etc., will be displaced. Wildlife corridors are no substitute

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
This development will place unserviceable additional strain (i.e. emergency services, doctors, dentist, elderly care etc...) on essential local services, that are already stretched to capacity.

I strongly object to the outline North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011- 2031 especially the sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 which affect the areas of Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green, Tea Green, Copthorne, Rochford Drive, Putteridgebury, Wandon End, Wigmore and Brick kiln Lane, for the following reasons: Please tick all of the issues that concern you (all if necessary!) .The 'New Neighbourhood Planning Infrastructure Bill 2016' states that it supports the Government's ambition to deliver one million new homes, whilst protecting those areas that are valued most, including the Green Belt. This area is Green Belt and the application does not meet the 'Very Special Circumstances' required to build on it as stated in paragraph 80 and 83 of the National Planning Framework and also the House of Commons briefing note on Green Belt. The Green Belt boundaries should not be amended in response to individual planning applications (The National Planning Policy Framework, Paragraph 83).

There are 205 dwellings in Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green and Tea Green currently. An additional 2100 dwellings will be an increase of 1124%. This development is completely out of proportion to all other developments in the district - these villages and communities will cease to exist.

1.Of these additional dwellings 150 are for North Herts, the remaining 1950 are to meet Luton's supposed unmet needs, a number which hasn't been qualified when challenged.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: Crawley Green Road and Eaton Green Road are backing up over 750 metres at their junctions with Airport Way during the rush hour, without the addition of a further 5000+ vehicles. The roads through the airport are often gridlocked and with the growth of passengers at Luton Airport, currently 12.75 million (2015) with a projected increase year on year to 22 million by 2030 this is set to worsen. Stockingstone and A505 suffer equally.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The traffic Survey carried in 2015 was not done to industry standards i.e. for a month and also the results of this survey showed a negligible or nil effect on local congestion when the results, and thus the underpinning of the proposal, were based on a road that doesn't exist, hasn't been proposed and has been stated by the council that there is no money to develop.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: In the shorter term, the projected airport development/business park/light industry, will attract a further 7,000 employees (ref. LBC). The roads cannot cope with this increase in vehicles.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The two country lanes with insufficient passing places which lead out of the site into North Herts are already being used as dangerous rat-runs. This will increase as residents seek to access the M1 via Lilley Bottom and Lilley, and seek to access Hitchin/Stevenage through Offley.

2.The paths and woodlands are used by villagers and people from neighbouring Luton as a leisure area for walking/running/cycling. These will be destroyed despite the national push to encourage people to keep fit.

3.In the presentation of the local plan Councillor Levitt stated that "the development plays a key role in supporting the growth of our economy planning for the right type and number of homes, in the right place to create sustainable communities" How can a development only linking north Herts by two single track lanes be considered as a sustainable community?

4.There is sufficient brown field land in Luton to accommodate 'Luton's Unmet Need' at the same housing density as this proposed development.

5.Teeming wildlife, owl, bats, deer, etc., will be displaced. Wildlife corridors are no substitute

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
THERE IS NO PLANNED IMPROVEMENT TO THE ALREADY STRETCHED ROADS/INFRASTRUCTURE:

Also there is no planned provision for adequate schools, medical centre or recreation facility for a development of this size!

I strongly object to the outline North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011- 2031 especially the sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 which affect the areas of Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green, Tea Green, Copthorne, Rochford Drive, Putteridgebury, Wandon End, Wigmore and Brick kiln Lane, for the following reasons: Please tick all of the issues that concern you (all if necessary!) .The 'New Neighbourhood Planning Infrastructure Bill 2016' states that it supports the Government's ambition to deliver one million new homes, whilst protecting those areas that are valued most, including the Green Belt. This area is Green Belt and the application does not meet the 'Very Special Circumstances' required to build on it as stated in paragraph 80 and 83 of the National Planning Framework and also the House of Commons briefing note on Green Belt. The Green Belt boundaries should not be amended in response to individual planning applications (The National Planning Policy Framework, Paragraph 83).

There are 205 dwellings in Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green and Tea Green currently. An additional 2100 dwellings will be an increase of 1124%. This development is completely out of proportion to all other developments in the district - these villages and communities will cease to exist.

1.Of these additional dwellings 150 are for North Herts, the remaining 1950 are to meet Luton's supposed unmet needs, a number which hasn't been qualified when challenged.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: Crawley Green Road and Eaton Green Road are backing up over 750 metres at their junctions with Airport Way during the rush hour, without the addition of a further 5000+ vehicles. The roads through the airport are often gridlocked and with the growth of passengers at Luton Airport, currently 12.75 million (2015) with a projected increase year on year to 22 million by 2030 this is set to worsen. Stockingstone and A505 suffer equally.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The traffic Survey carried in 2015 was not done to industry standards i.e. for a month and also the results of this survey showed a negligible or nil effect on local congestion when the results, and thus the underpinning of the proposal, were based on a road that doesn't exist, hasn't been proposed and has been stated by the council that there is no money to develop.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: In the shorter term, the projected airport development/business park/light industry, will attract a further 7,000 employees (ref. LBC). The roads cannot cope with this increase in vehicles.

2.The paths and woodlands are used by villagers and people from neighbouring Luton as a leisure area for walking/running/cycling. These will be destroyed despite the national push to encourage people to keep fit.

3.In the presentation of the local plan Councillor Levitt stated that "the development plays a key role in supporting the growth of our economy planning for the right type and number of homes, in the right place to create sustainable communities" How can a development only linking north Herts by two single track lanes be considered as a sustainable community?

4.There is sufficient brown field land in Luton to accommodate 'Luton's Unmet Need' at the same housing density as this proposed development.

5.Teeming wildlife, owl, bats, deer, etc., will be displaced. Wildlife corridors are no substitute

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
This development will place unserviceable additional strain (i.e. emergency services, doctors, dentist, elderly care etc...) on essential local service! s, that are already stretched to capacity.

I strongly object to the outline North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011- 2031 especially the sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 which affect the areas of Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green, Tea Green, Copthorne, Rochford Drive, Putteridgebury, Wandon End, Wigmore and Brick kiln Lane, for the following reasons: Please tick all of the issues that concern you (all if necessary!) .The 'New Neighbourhood Planning Infrastructure Bill 2016' states that it supports the Government's ambition to deliver one million new homes, whilst protecting those areas that are valued most, including the Green Belt. This area is Green Belt and the application does not meet the 'Very Special Circumstances' required to build on it as stated in paragraph 80 and 83 of the National Planning Framework and also the House of Commons briefing note on Green Belt. The Green Belt boundaries should not be amended in response to individual planning applications (The National Planning Policy Framework, Paragraph 83).

There are 205 dwellings in Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green and Tea Green currently. An additional 2100 dwellings will be an increase of 1124%. This development is completely out of proportion to all other developments in the district - these villages and communities will cease to exist.

1.Of these additional dwellings 150 are for North Herts, the remaining 1950 are to meet Luton's supposed unmet needs, a number which hasn't been qualified when challenged.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: Crawley Green Road and Eaton Green Road are backing up over 750 metres at their junctions with Airport Way during the rush hour, without the addition of a further 5000+ vehicles. The roads through the airport are often gridlocked and with the growth of passengers at Luton Airport, currently 12.75 million (2015) with a projected increase year on year to 22 million by 2030 this is set to worsen. Stockingstone and A505 suffer equally.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure:The traffic Survey carried in 2015 was not done to industry standards i.e. for a month and also the results of this survey showed a negligible or nil effect on local congestion when the results, and thus the underpinning of the proposal, were based on a road that doesn't exist, hasn't been proposed and has been stated by the council that there is no money to develop.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: In the shorter term, the projected airport development/business park/light industry, will attract a further 7,000 employees (ref. LBC). The roads cannot cope with this increase in vehicles.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The two country lanes with insufficient passing places which lead out of the site into North Herts are already being used as dangerous rat-runs. This will increase as residents seek to access the M1 via Lilley Bottom and Lilley, and seek to access Hitchin/Stevenage through Offley.

2.The paths and woodlands are used by villagers and people from neighbouring Luton as a leisure area for walking/running/cycling. These will be destroyed despite the national push to encourage people to keep fit.

3.In the presentation of the local plan Councillor Levitt stated that "the development plays a key role in supporting the growth of our economy planning for the right type and number of homes, in the right place to create sustainable communities" How can a development only linking north Herts by two single track lanes be considered as a sustainable community?

4.There is sufficient brown field land in Luton to accommodate 'Luton's Unmet Need' at the same housing density as this proposed development.

5.Teeming wildlife, owl, bats, deer, etc., will be displaced. Wildlife corridors are no substitute

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
This development will place unserviceable additional strain (i.e. emergency services, doctors, dentist, elderly care etc...) on essential local services, that are already stretched to capacity.

Whitwell is a Village. It has No amenities, apart from one post office/shop. To build homes in Whitwell is madness.

Object to Chapter 4 SP8:
This plan is mad as it proposes many houses for a totally unsuitable site.

Object to Chapter 4 SP2:
The Village will no longer be a Village with the proposed extra houses. Whitwell has already absorbed a huge amount of housing development , with houses being built up Horn hill, all over the once were Allotments, and out on the Lilley bottom road before the Cress beds. The congestion on the small roads is hideous, with the high street of Whitwell being impassable and dangerous to any local resident trying to get out of their front door. This traffic congestion then continues down onto Codicote high street through to the A1 and Welwyn garden City, along Whitwell road to Hitchin and out on the Lilley bottom road towards Luton. The quality of life in Whitwell can only deteriorate with more houses and the inevitable addition of many more cars. There is no work immediately around Whitwell so everyone will drive out towards the A1, Luton or the Railway stations at Stevenage or Hitchin.

Object to Chapter 13, SP2:
This sight is not acceptable due to a high risk of flooding. The more we build over countryside, the risk of flooding multiplies.

Personal objection;
We need green space and places for wildlife. Without bees and other pollinators we are all dead. DO NOT BUILD ON GREEN FIELD SITES.

See attachment

See attachment

I am writing to place my objection about the GA2 development on land to the North of Great Ashby, Herts.
We urge North Hertfordshire District Council to remove GA1 and GA2 from the list of allocated sites for development in North Stevenage and consider the implications to all those involved/affected.
Objections/reasons against GA1/GA2 include:
Greenbelt is precious and should not be developed - building on these sites contravene protected status and this precedence must not be set. Greenbelt areas are important to prevent urban sprawl, stop towns from merging, protect the countryside and promote urban regeneration. The density of the proposed housing is of city nature and not suited to Greenbelt countryside, I believe it is not inline with the 2007 Urban design assessment report commissioned by NHDC.
The land in GA2 houses a rich and diverse amount of wildlife including endangered red kites, barn owls, bats and the currently protected badger. NHDC have a DUTY to conserve the biodiversity of this area. The muntjac deer population has already seriously decreased since Great Ashby was built. Further development would be catastrophic to our wildlife. GA2 would totally encompass ancient woodland and a natural spring, building in this area would destroy valuable wildlife habitats.
A development of this magnitude would be visibly intrusive and harm the character and appearance of an area of outstanding beauty scattered with listed buildings and villages, such as Graveley. This area is used and enjoyed by many people, footpaths and bridleways crossing the proposed sites GA1 & GA2 form part of the historic Hertfordshire way and are frequented by many ramblers, horse riders and dog walkers.
The infrastructure is not suitable for another 2000 homes. Traffic through Great Ashby is already at capacity and congested with many parked cars and can be quite dangerous at peak times.
Doctors surgeries in North Stevenage are struggling with the extra volume of patients already.
Proposed developments are remote from the retail and commercial centres of Stevenage and Hitchin, many businesses are already struggling in Stevenage and a number of shops have closed in the town centre. Extra housing would put severe pressure on an already lack of employment. For commuters, trains are already at full capacity during peak times and the A1 is congested.
Socially affordable housing is not mentioned within the proposals, surely local councils should be considering the needs of people already living in Stevenage & the huge waiting lists .
We understand that housing is needed but feel it would be more sensible to build a completely new settlement/garden city somewhere with reasonable transport links, but away from any towns or villages and NOT at the loss of important Green Belt or woodland. A new settlement that over time can grow to meet the needs of the people with the correct infrastructure designed into it from the beginning and would create thousands of jobs and new employment. We also urge local councils and government to build on brown field sites as an alternative and to look at the many thousands of boarded up council homes that lay dormant across the UK.

I am writing to place my objection about the GA2 development on land to the North of Great Ashby, Herts.

We urge North Hertfordshire District Council to remove GA1 and GA2 from the list of allocated sites for development in North Stevenage and consider the implications to all those involved/affected.

Objections/reasons against GA1/GA2 include:

Greenbelt is precious and should not be developed - building on these sites contravene protected status and this precedence must not be set.
Greenbelt areas are important to prevent urban sprawl, stop towns from merging, protect the countryside and promote urban regeneration. The density of the proposed housing is of city nature and not suited to Greenbelt countryside, I believe it is not inline with the 2007 Urban design assessment report commissioned by NHDC.

The land in GA2 houses a rich and diverse amount of wildlife including endangered red kites, barn owls, bats and the currently protected badger. NHDC have a DUTY to conserve the biodiversity of this area. The muntjac deer population has already seriously decreased since Great Ashby was built. Further development would be catastrophic to our wildlife. GA2 would totally encompass ancient woodland and a natural spring, building in this area would destroy valuable wildlife habitats.

A development of this magnitude would be visibly intrusive and harm the character and appearance of an area of outstanding beauty scattered with listed buildings and villages, such as Graveley. This area is used and enjoyed by many people, footpaths and bridleways crossing the proposed sites GA1 & GA2 form part of the historic Hertfordshire way and are frequented by many ramblers, horse riders and dog walkers.

The infrastructure is not suitable for another 2000 homes. Traffic through Great Ashby is already at capacity and congested with many parked cars and can be quite dangerous at peak times.

Doctors surgeries in North Stevenage are struggling with the extra volume of patients already.

Proposed developments are remote from the retail and commercial centres of Stevenage and Hitchin, many businesses are already struggling in Stevenage and a number of shops have closed in the town centre. Extra housing would put severe pressure on an already lack of employment. For commuters, trains are already at full capacity during peak times and the
A1 is congested.

Socially affordable housing is not mentioned within the proposals, surely local councils should be considering the needs of people already living in Stevenage & the huge waiting lists .

We understand that housing is needed but feel it would be more sensible to build a completely new settlement/garden city somewhere with reasonable transport links, but away from any towns or villages and NOT at the loss of important Green Belt or woodland. A new settlement that over time can grow to meet the needs of the people with the correct infrastructure designed into it from the beginning and would create thousands of jobs and new employment. We also urge local councils and government to build on brown field sites as an alternative and to look at the many thousands of boarded up council homes that lay dormant across the UK.

On the proposed NHDC plan an area identified as BA 10 styled Employment is deemed to encompass some form of commercial development for either moderate or high industrial factories or similar.

The plan is flawed under the NPPF section 4 (promoting sustainable transport) and not sound because:-

No evidence has been produced that Baldock's current infrastructure and development requires or needs any areas of this kind.

No indication or respect as to the what will happen with 7 houses that are listed, and have entrances on the B656, Royston Road.
No mention as to what will happen to our sewerage waste water as all houses along the street are not connected to any local council's framework, we have septic tanks.
No mention or investigation has been made on the impact of increased road traffic, heavy vehicles, noise and air-pollution on and around the B656.

The proposed plan has identified an area BA1, a piece of land North of Baldock (known as Blackhorse Farm) for development of 2800 homes which with the other proposed sites will effectively increase Baldock population by 80% (nearly double),based on the latest consensus. This I consider not to be sound or justified and certainly not supported under the NPPF Chapter 2 (ensuring the vitality of town centres). Baldock is identified as a rural market town and this would surely change the individuality of the town. I also consider this not sound or consistent with national policy in respect that no other town in our district has been asked to have such a massive and profound increase in development.

Should the proposed plan be accepted it is proposed that a servicing road be built from the A507 to the area BA1 as mentioned above and followed with a exit/entry point at the end of the B656 Royston road with access to the A505. I will discuss this later in my mail as I have points on the proposed bridge over an electrified railway line.

The proposed plan gives the impression that these entry and access roads will provide sustainable transport solutions which is so far from the truth. Baldock has many listed buildings which coincidentally some are to be found at the intersection of the B656 and A507 and therefore access to the town from the BA1 development still needs to come through this bottleneck intersection to get to the towns amenities. This is surely not effective as there is insufficient evidence in the plan to show that the traffic issues can be solved and therefore not made on sound decision making and certainly not under the NPPF section 4 guidelines. I think that it is very important to note that the A507 has a extremely low railway bridge not more 300 metres from the very same intersection with the B656.

The proposed BA1 plan has identified, but not actually indicated that the road will require a bridge to be built to go over an already raised electrified railway track. This cannot be in any way found to be sound as this bridge would not only be a total eye sore but have to be built many metres into the air and it is assumed require many safety regulations. This surely cannot be justified, effective or positively prepared.

In terms of the NPPF, core planning principals, Page 5 (11/65) item 17, it expressly states that a plan needs to be genuinely led empowering local people to shape their surroundings. I cannot find within the NHDC local plan any indication that, should the development go ahead, which comes first amenities, houses, schools or the link roads and bridges. This I feel supports my conclusion that the NHDC plan lacks soundness and has not been positively prepared, is justified, is not effective and is not consistent within the framework of national policy.

It is further not justified as the most appropriate strategy given the alternative of building 3100 houses on the land West of Stevenage which is closer to the centre of employment and may be deliverable in a shorter time frame.

Finally, the proposed plan seems to ignore ambulance and police services and any mention that the extra number of residents would place huge pressure on our local hospital, Lister, which is already serving a large community.

I have no need to participate at the oral examination but would like to be notified when the local plan is submitted.

I strongly object to this proposed residential development for the following reasons:
* This proposal would destroy a large amount of North Hertfordshire's Green Belt land, including large swathes of prime countryside which is designated of special significant landscape value. Government policy on Green Belt land is completely ignored in this proposal. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.
* In March and October 2014, the Government updated its online Planning Practice guidance on the policies in the NPPF. This makes it very clear that unmet housing need in a particular area is unlikely to meet the "very special circumstances" test to justify Green Belt development. It also confirms that local authorities have the ability to "safeguard their local area against urban sprawl and protect the green lungs around towns and cities". The government said that it wanted to make planning policy clear that housing need does not justify the harm done to the Green Belt by inappropriate development. This development does not meet the "very special circumstances" test and would seriously harm the Green Belt.
* North Hertfordshire District Council seem intent on allowing their land to be used for building a large number of houses for Luton's alleged unmet housing need, but there is evidence available which clearly indicates that they are not required. .
* If this development went ahead, the ancient villages of Mangrove Green and Cockernhoe would be swamped and lose their individual identity and destruction of local community values
* There will be a devastating impact on wildlife in the area.
Green spaces are essential to the health and well-being of the population but this proposal would mean that access to the countryside for relaxation, recreation and tranquillity will be severely reduced. Many miles of country footpaths enjoyed by many and not least including Luton residents will be concreted over. Plans for green areas within the development will not compensate for this huge loss of green spaces.
* The road infrastructure in the area is already unable to cope with current levels of traffic. Roads into Luton, Luton airport and those which access the M1 are gridlocked at certain times of the day at present. This will be further exacerbated if this development went ahead.
* There are already long tailbacks of vehicles at both the Luton and Hitchin ends of the A505 with frustrated drivers taking to inadequate country lanes to try and avoid the worst bottlenecks. This continues through this part of Luton and towards the motorway. Further development will significantly exaggerate this, increasing danger to pedestrians and the many local school children who walk to school.
* Many local roads in the vicinity of the proposed site are narrow country lanes with single track stretches and they too will be unable to cope with increased traffic, particularly public transport vehicles and large delivery vans and lorries which will be required to serve the development.
* The proposals on transport infrastructure in the application do not do enough to assure us that they will mitigate or improve the problems outlined here. Further independent assessment and research should be undertaken before outline planning permission is granted.
* Local schools at Cockernhoe and Wigmore are already oversubscribed. The application does not indicate where the additional children will be educated.
* Emergency services will struggle to access and serve the community.
* There are no realistic plans for increased provision of essential services such as GP surgeries, hospitals, emergency services, police and adequate public transport. The number of dwellings in this proposal means that all these services will require more resources.
* This proposal is for 660 dwellings. This is an overwhelming number for such a small area. A development of this size in such close proximity to an expanding airport with its associated noise and pollution will not provide a good, healthy lifestyle for the residents.
Ancient bluebell woods will be completely over-run and risk destruction by additional residents new to the development.
I cycle in this area very regularly for my rest and relaxation, to enjoy fresh air and beautiful open countryside to maintain my health fitness.
Do not let it be destroyed.
I sincerely hopes that these objections will ensure that this application is rejected

I am absolutely against this development. The North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2911-2031 especially the E11, E12 and E13 will affect the area of Cockenhoe, Mangrove Green, Tea Green, Copthorne, Rochford Drive, Putteridgbury, Wandon End, Wigmore and Brick Kiln Lane.

I feel it is unnecessary to make use of Greenbelt area. The government infrastructure bill 2016 clearly states that it supports the Government's ambition to deliver one million homes whilst protecting greenbelt areas. This development goes totally against the Government objectives. The proposed development totally goes against the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which sets out strategic priorities that all local plans need to consider including Environmental and Economical considerations. The following table outlines some of the environmental considerations.

Environmental:
ENV1 Direct development towards the most sustainable locations which seek to maintain the existing settlement pattern.
ENV2 Protect and enhance the historic character of North Hertfordshire's towns, villages, hamlets and landscape by promoting good design that creates a distinctive sense of place.
ENV3 Protect, maintain and enhance the District's historic and natural environment, its cultural assets and network of open spaces, urban and rural landscapes.

Clearly the proposed development goes against all of these environmental considerations. It will destroy the environment, the village community and create noise and pollution in the area used by locals for walking and recreation.

From economical stand point, there are no industry in the vicinity nor will it create business opportunity or jobs, any one leaving in the are will have to commute through small lanes into Hertfordshire or on to Eaton Green Road and Crawley Green Road, putting further strain on already congested roads.

The plan does not take into consideration the infrastructure required to support the scale of this development. The road infrastructure around the villages and roads leading into Luton will not support the level of traffic during pick times given that the majority of the traffic will come into Luton. The roads leading into Luton central and parkway station are already congested. We commute into London and due to congestion on Crawley and Eaton Green Road it takes us upto half an hour in the morning to get to the station, which during off peak times can take as little as 10 to 12 minutes. Clearly with the increase in the level of traffic the commute time will increase. The Luton Main station car park gets full by late morning, I have had to find alternative parking on a number of occasion, with additional cars will create further parking issues.

The additional traffic will cause more damage to the road system, the repair of which will have to be carried out by LBC thus increasing cost of council tax for residence in Luton Bedfordshire. How will Hertfordshire Council compensate LBC and Luton Tax pair for this additional cost?

Servicing; we have not seen any proposal for how and who will service this development, IE refuge collection, emergency services etc given that the proposed development is going to be considerable distance away from the Hertfordshire main conurbation. Servicing will be difficult with a large refuge collection and emergency vehicle going through small lanes. This will be even more difficult in the winter when we get snow or icy roads.

It has been said that this development is to meet Luton's housing needs, if that is the case then there is lot of other land in North Luton which can be used for housing development, that will provide easy access to Motorways, especially with new M1 junction, and into the Luton. There is lot of other land available in Hertfordshire for this type of development, closer to other Hertfordshire towns. In my view this development will put greater demand on Bedfordshire resources and cost of which will have to be born by Luton Bedfordshire tax payers.

This is an ill thought out development proposal, with Cockenhoe and Tea Green increase in dwellings of 4200% and 1124% respectively with no investment in infrastructure to support such increase.

I am and all the other people in Wigmore area are totally opposed to this development, and will be willing to take necessary action to stop the approval of this plan.

I strongly object to the outline North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2911-2031 especially the E11, E12 and E13 will affect the area of Cockenhoe, Mangrove Green, Tea Green, Copthorne, Rochford Drive, Putteridgbury, Wandon End, Wigmore and Brick Kiln Lane.

I feel it is unnecessary to make use of Greenbelt area. The government infrastructure bill 2016 clearly states that it supports the Government's ambition to deliver one million homes whilst protecting greenbelt areas. This development goes totally against the Government objectives. The proposed development totally goes against the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which sets out strategic priorities that all local plans need to consider including Environmental and Economical considerations. The following table outlines some of the environmental considerations.

Environmental:
ENV1 Direct development towards the most sustainable locations which seek to maintain the existing settlement pattern.
ENV2 Protect and enhance the historic character of North Hertfordshire's towns, villages, hamlets and landscape by promoting good design that creates a distinctive sense of place.
ENV3 Protect, maintain and enhance the District's historic and natural environment, its cultural assets and network of open spaces, urban and rural landscapes.

Clearly the proposed development goes against all of these environmental considerations. It will destroy the environment, the village community and create noise and pollution in the area used by locals for walking and recreation.

From economical stand point, there are no industry in the vicinity nor will it create business opportunities or jobs, any one leaving in the are will have to commute through small lanes into Hertfordshire or on to Eaton Green Road and Crawley Green Road, putting further strain on already congested roads.

The plan does not take into consideration the infrastructure required to support the scale of this development. The road infrastructure around the villages and roads leading into Luton will not support the level of traffic during pick times given that the majority of the traffic will come into Luton. The roads leading into Luton central and parkway station are already congested. We commute into London and due to congestion on Crawley Green and Eaton Green Road it takes us upto half an hour in the morning to get to the station, which during off peak times can take as little as 10 to 12 minutes. Clearly with the increase in the level of traffic the commute time will increase. The Luton Main station car park gets full by late morning, I have had to find alternative parking on a number of occasion, with additional cars will create further parking issues.

The additional traffic will cause more damage to the road system, the repair of which will have to be carried out by LBC thus increasing cost of council tax for residence in Luton Bedfordshire. How will Hertfordshire Council compensate LBC and Luton Tax pair for this additional cost?

Servicing; we have not seen any proposal for how and who will service this development, IE refuge collection, emergency services etc given that the proposed development is going to be considerable distance away from the Hertfordshire main conurbation. Servicing will be difficult with a large refuge collection and emergency vehicle going through small lanes. This will be even more difficult in the winter when we get snow or icy roads.

It has been said that this development is to meet Luton's housing needs, if that is the case then there is lot of other land in North Luton which can be used for housing development, that will provide easy access to Motorways, especially with new M1 junction, and into the Luton. There is lot of other land available in Hertfordshire for this type of development, closer to other Hertfordshire towns. In my view this development will put greater demand on Bedfordshire resources and cost of which will have to be born by Luton Bedfordshire tax payers.

I am and all the other people in Wigmore area are totally opposed to this development, and will be willing to take necessary action to stop the approval of this plan.

The proposed allocation of 2800 homes on site BA1 (North of Baldock) under policies SP8 and SP14 would have a serious negative impact on the Green Belt. This is acknowledged in the Plan and supporting documents (Housing and Green Belt background paper para 3.14) as making a significant contribution to Green Belt purposes and is identified as having moderate to high landscape sensitivity.

Ref: Local Plan 2011 - 2013 Paragraphs 13.183 - 13.202
I would have liked to have filled in in your application form online but I had real trouble actually typing in the boxes. Most of the text was cut in half or the boxes disappeared when I tried to type. So please accept this email as my application.
According to the CPRE newsletter, Spring 2016, page 1, "Hertfordshire is currently the worst affected county in terms of potential loss of Green Belt to development. Over 41,000 new homes. The size of Watford."
In August 2013, the planning application for 3.600 new homes, west of Stevenage, was withdrawn as not required and in the wake of BREXIT, immigration is to be reduced. If either or both of these states are true do we still need so many new homes? Is this Local Plan already out of date?
I wish to draw your attention to the proposed housing development for the village of Knebworth. The Local Plan acknowledges the fact that Knebworth is a village describing it as a Category A village because of its size, employment availability and facilities. 663 new homes will increase the size of Knebworth by 31%. As I understand it, this is the largest percentage increase planned for any other town or village in Hertfordshire. It will change the character of the village completely. This increase will impact on the existing services and infrastructure that are already struggling to cope. This proposed development does not take into account the approved plans for 80 new homes on the northern border of the Knebworth parish, adjacent to Stevenage.
There is no strategy included in the Local Plan to make the planners and construction teams for all the site to work together for the bettering of infrastructure and transport opportunities.
I suggest that the NHDC planning department ensures that all empty properties are occupied before allowing the proposed development to take place eg. House in Gun Road, Knebworth that has never been occupied in over 20 years. (see attached photos)
The infrastructure for Knebworth is already woefully inadequate. Twice recently there has been bad flooding forcing people to leave their homes. There are pinch points in Watton Road (access to KB4), the high street (B197), three narrow rail bridges with height or weight restrictions and blind bends (access to KB2 & KB3) which all cause congestion and road rage. The station, doctors' surgery and the primary school are also struggling to cope.

TRANSPORT
GOVIA, the local rail operatives are reviewing the possibility of reducing the rail service at Knebworth. With increased housing both within Knebworth and surrounding villages e.g. Codicote, Woolmer Green, even more pressure will be put on the station and its environs.
The railway station in Knebworth has inadequate parking facilities but still draws commuters from surrounding towns and villages, as they park on the streets near the station, thus avoiding parking fees. However the problems have never been resolved and residents regularly have to put up with commuter aggression and dreadful parking across their driveways so that they can't use their own vehicles. This leads to residents parking their own cars on the road to stop the inconsiderate parking from the commuters, thus increasing congestion and road rage.
To compound the daily misery of Knebworth commuters, GOVIA, the current franchise holders of the London to Edinburgh line, is reviewing the timetable with the view of reducing the number of trains that will stop at Knebworth and stopping the fast trains altogether This mitigates one of the reasons for increasing housing in Knebworth.
The residents of Knebworth experience daily congestion on the B197, especially but not only at peak times, making tail backs from Knebworth to Stevenage and from Knebworth to the Clock roundabout at Welwyn.
The A1M motorway was originally built as a bypass to Knebworth and other communities. The stretch of motorway from J6 -7 is the worst along the whole of the A1M for accidents and congestion, due to two lane carriageways. This means that, as soon as there is a problem on the motorway (high volume, accidents etc.), the B197, through Knebworth becomes the bypass for the A1M. With increased housing this only become worse.
FLOODING
The field identified for the KB2 housing project is a designated surface water run off for the A1M motorway. Recently this water has been so deep that it went up the thighs of one person in waders (see attached photos) and has flooded homes in Orchard Way and Broom Grove, so there has been an inquiry into this problem. The new houses will exacerbate this problem.
In addition, the Rye Meads Sewage Plant, which acts for Knebworth is already at full capacity. So where will it all go?
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Although affordable housing would be an ideal dream, it has not proved to be a reality in Knebworth. Developers always state that affordable homes are not viable. In addition the affordable home provision was reduced in the Housing and Planning Act 2016.
GREEN BELT
As stated at the beginning of this letter Hertfordshire is currently the worst affected county in terms of potential loss of Green Belt. Green Belt was instigated to prevent the coalescence of communities. As such, Green Belt land should only be removed in exceptional circumstances. This proposed housing does not constitute 'exceptional circumstances'. (http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/policy/achieving-sustainable-development/delivering-sustainable-development/9-protecting-green-belt-land/)

CONSERVATION
There are two main conservation areas within Knebworth. These are already suffering as rat runs with the aim of trying to avoid Knebworth's congestion as well as suffering from commuter parking.
One of the three bridges is a scheduled ancient monument (KB1). This bridge is already taking a regular hammering from all kinds of traffic that use it as a cut through or following satnavs. Lorries have been see to be reversing back off this bridge onto the B197 as they can't negotiate the tight bends or are over the weight limit.
COALESCENCE
The sites highlighted for new homes, especially KB2 and KB4 will cause coalescence between Stevenage, Knebworth, Woolmer Green and Welwyn making the B197 a built up ribbon development corridor.
Green Belt land was originally designed to prevent communities from coalescing. The railway line that delineates the border between Knebworth and Stevenage has already been breached as planning has been granted for 80 new homes on the Knebworth side of the track.

KB1 and KB2
As stated under FLOODING this land is a collection point for surface run off water from fields and the A1M motorway. (see attached photos)
All new residential traffic will have to join the already heavy traffic using the conservation area of Stockens Green, culminating in trying to cross the railway by using the bridge to Gun Road. This bridge is narrow making traffic drive in the middle, and a blind spot to traffic coming from KB2, as there is a right angled bend into the bridge. Added to this, during winter months, drivers also have to contend with driving into low blinding winter sun. The bridge is only 14 feet high which will cause problems for construction traffic. (see attached photos)
Traffic could also use the bridge at Deards End Lane, which has a blind bend at both ends and is a scheduled ancient monument or the bridge in Station Road. The latter bridge has been hit so many times by lorries that there are now very large fluorescent signs warning lorry drivers about how low it is.
Due to the design of all three bridges, traffic is forced to use the middle of the road, making for single lane traffic, when either crossing the Deards End Lane bridge or going through the Gun Road and Station Road bridges.
KB3
This site is, at the moment, the site of Knebworth's principle employer. Soon this builders' yard will be closed, making jobs redundant, and will be replace with 14 new homes. This is prime commercial land that is being changed to housing. One of the major statements within the NHDC proposal was the maintenance and expansion of local businesses. Not only is there a loss of a commercial site in the centre of the village there are already issues with bottle necking traffic. Also surface water drainage is a problem on the high street.
In addition to losing these jobs, the doctors' surgery is to be amalgamated with the library on the library site. The library is to be downgraded to Tier 3, which means it will be run by volunteers only. A pharmacy is to be included. As we have two pharmacies on the High Street now, with a third proposed in the surgery, it is quite likely that at least one, if not both of the street pharmacies will close. So along with paid library staff, pharmacy employees may also lose their jobs. CPRE states that no evidence has been put forward to show that new employment opportunities have been established in the village to match the amount of proposed housing. We are losing employment opportunities and facilities at a time when they should not only be kept, but increased and developed if the new housing goes ahead.
KB4
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) principle states "the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside should be recognised while supporting thriving communities". This has clearly not been considered during the construction of the NHDC Local Plan. It also says planning should ensure the protection of the countryside and agricultural land.
CPRE Newsletter Spring 2015 states, " Planning Authorities' duty is to give weight to the protection of the best and most versatile agricultural land". This is prime agricultural land. Planning permission was withdrawn in 2016, by the Secretary of State, for a solar farm, due to the high quality agricultural land and the outstanding beauty of the area.
During drop off / pick up times it is dangerous for carers and the children outside the local primary school, due to carers parking on bends in narrow Swangley's Lane. This has been highlighted by a local resident at a Parish Council meeting as an accident waiting to happen. Increased residential traffic, and prior to that, builders' traffic will only exacerbate the problem and the danger.
KB4 will bring coalescence between Stevenage and Knebworth at the Broadwater side of Stevenage and also, potentially, with Woolmer Green, where addition housing is planned by Welwyn Hatfield District Council but not accounted for by NHDC under the proposed housing for Knebworth.
To sum up, I appreciate that more housing is needed but the proposed developments appear to be a knee jerk reaction and not carefully thought through, not just for the existing residents but for the people who will move into Knebworth as a result of the increased housing available. Knebworth is a sought after village enjoyed by many, but this will be killed if the proposed housing goes ahead on such a grand scale.
In August 2013, planning approval was withdrawn for 3.600 new homes on land west of Stevenage, as the need was not there anymore.
When land is built on, it's lost to agriculture for ever. If we, as a nation, should need to feed ourselves without importation (eg. during a war) we will not have enough agricultural land available.

Many thanks for taking the time to read my thoughts, comments and concerns.

We would like to make our views known as to the Local Plan put forward by NHDC and specifically as regards Codicote expansion.

[...] We have good local knowledge from both professional and personnel levels.

Objections to the Local Plan as published.

We are NOT nimbys and fully support house construction in appropriate areas. We actually support the Plan as regards areas in Codicote such as Garden Centre/brown field development on the grounds that we need to do something and do it soon.

Codicote is a tightly knit village with a reliance on everyone having an interdependence within the community as well as family, the expansion seen already by transforming a high percentage of the High Street and other areas from mixed business to residential has already taken a toll on the very nature of the village but more importantly the infrastructure is now at a point where it fails on a regular basis.
If we build up to 250 new homes on predominantly Green belt sites (which appears to contradict the Government's published plans) the pressure on the emergency services, schools, hospitals (which are slowly crumbling under the weight of numbers attending) as well as the obvious road population increases will have a permanent negative impact on the area and the wellbeing of the residents.

Given the need we so clearly have would not a totally new Garden City/Town such as those we lead the world in constructing last centuary, be the better answer?
There are several brown field sites I can think of in Hertfordshire that would be obvious choices, Henlow Camp is a good example as would any of the ex military or industrial sites. Green Belt usage is both against current environmental thinking and a stated Government policy.

I could list many other arguments to avoid Green Belt exploitation but am sure you will already have heard them all many times over.

Having read in detail the Local Plan we confirm our opposition to it as regards the section where Green Belt is consumed.

The following representations are made with respect to the North Hertfordshire Proposed Submission Local Plan (the "Local Plan").

POSITIVELY PREPARED

1. The Local Plan has not been positively prepared in the context of Knebworth (paragraphs 13.183-13.202 of the Local Plan).

2. Knebworth is a village of some 4,500 inhabitants and contains approximately 2,000 dwellings. The Local Plan proposes to build another 663 homes in Knebworth, increasing the number of dwellings by a third. This is an unrealistic aim if proper account is taken of the logistical and environmental constraints to which the parish is subject.

3. The NHDC Infrastructure Delivery Plan of September 2016 sets out the current state of the village:

- Knebworth's railway station had patronage of approximately 600,000 travelers in 2014/15, a 71 per cent. increase on the figure ten years earlier. Commuting from the station is getting increasingly crowded, a problem which will be exacerbated if the proposed revisions to the rail network are implemented in 2018, leading to a reduction in the number of fast trains during the rush hour period
- Knebworth is classified as having very limited capacity for school provision, and has no ability to cope with housing growth
- Knebworth Medical Practice takes on 33 patients per square metre, and is over accommodated by 5,000 patients
- Knebworth Library is small (234 square metres) and requires additional stock, shelving and IT
- Thames Water is of the view that further consideration is needed of Knebworth's sewerage capacity, and that issues with the foul sewer system need reviewing as the village does not have a dedicated surface water system

4. To that I would add the following observations:

- The village's road network is limited both in terms of extent and with regard to the quality and capacity of the thoroughfares themselves
- The lack of adequate parking facilities in the village is a significant cause of congestion, and a source of frustration for local residents. The High Street (B197) is a constant pinch point for traffic, leading to significant tailbacks and traffic jams at peak travel times, with vehicles often unable to travel in opposite directions along the High Street at the same time due to the number of parked cars
- The High Street contains a modest number of enterprises and shops, albeit of some variety. As an illustration of the limited nature of local commercial activity, there is only one eat-in restaurant open in the village in the evenings.
- The village has two Conservation Areas (Deards End and Stockens Green) which would be negatively impacted (in terms of noise, pollution, traffic, outlook etc.) by the nearby construction of hundreds of new dwellings
- The land at Deards End Lane on the west side of the village, a Green Belt site on which development is proposed, is proximate to Knebworth Woods SSSI
- The Local Plan also envisages the creation of 150 new homes in the neighbouring settlement of Woolmer Green. The additional impact of these new homes upon Knebworth has not been considered at all in the Plan.

5. It is clear from the above that there are a number of constraints militating against any meaningful expansion of housing in the village. With regard to the Local Plan's potential impact upon Knebworth, it is particularly difficult to justify a proposed increase in housing of such a magnitude when land is reserved at Stevenage West for some 3,100 homes.

6. However, an examination of the Local Plan reveals a failure on the part of NHDC to take any of the above into account in a meaningful way. The NPPF lists three dimensions to sustainable development, none of which are addressed by the proposals for Knebworth:
An economic role - the Plan fails to meet the requirement of "identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure". No explanation is given as to how the roads around the parish could reasonably be expected to cope with the significant increase in traffic which the proposed development would bring (when it is clear to any local resident that this would be hugely problematic); no explanation is given as to whether and how public services such as medical facilities, library, pharmacies would be improved and extended; no ideas are put forward to address the impact on local parking facilities, particularly around the railway station.

A social role - implementation of the Local Plan in Knebworth could not conceivably be regarded as "creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being". The proposals amount to nothing more than the unceremonious dumping of over 600 new homes and a primary school on the borders of a village which is already struggling with its existing infrastructure. The idea that this should be done through the removal of land from the Green Belt surrounding the village (as to which see further below) merely adds insult to injury.

An environmental role - the Plan could in no way be regarded as "contributing to, protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment". It would involve the elimination of large quantities of the Green Belt surrounding the village; the building of hundreds of houses on a site adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific Interest and to a Conservation Area; a likely negative impact on local wildlife sites; and the construction of dwellings bordering on the A1(M) with its concomitant pollution and noise.

7. In the context of Site KB1 (land at Deards End Lane), I would in particular draw attention to the complete absence of suitable road networking to support housing development on this land. Occupants of this site travelling through the village either to Stevenage or the A1 would need to travel down Park Lane, under the railway bridge which struggles to accommodate two cars travelling in opposite directions, and on to the High Street, which already suffers significantly from congestion; or travel via Deards End Lane itself, which is a narrow unlit lane with no road markings and no street lighting, is too narrow in three or four places to allow cars to pass one another, and has at one end a Scheduled Ancient Monument in the form of a railway bridge. The failure of the Plan to address this fundamental problem, and indeed the problem of traffic around Knebworth more generally, at a preliminary stage is both bewildering and damning.

JUSTIFIED
Housing Requirement
1. The methodology employed in calculating the Housing Requirement for North Hertfordshire is fundamentally flawed (paragraph 4.86 of the Plan).

2. The Stevenage and North Hertfordshire SHMA Update 2015, jointly commissioned by North Hertfordshire District Council and Stevenage Borough Council, sets out in Chapter 2 the basis upon which the Objectively Assessed Need ("OAN") should be established; and it is from the OAN that the Housing Requirement is eventually derived. As the SHMA Update noted, paragraph 15 of the Planning Practice Guidance published in March 2014 places emphasis on the role of CLG Household Projections as the appropriate starting point in determining the OAN.

3. The 2012-2037 Household Projections produced by CLG, published on 27 February 2015, represent the most up-to-date estimate of future growth. These projections suggest that household numbers across Stevenage and North Hertfordshire will increase by 21,280 over the 20-year period 2011-31, an average of 1,064 per year. The SHMA Update of 2015, however, took the view that growth of 19,213 households over the period, equating to an average figure of 960 households per year, was a more appropriate figure based on 10-year migration trends. That figure of 19,213 households was then adjusted to take into account vacancy and second home rates (i.e. dwellings rather than households), suppressed household formation rates and market signals - see Figure 40 in paragraph 3.88 of the SHMA Update 2015. This resulted in a Full Objectively Assessed Need for Housing for the period 2011-31 of 21,685 dwellings.

4. A further update report, published in August 2016, adjusted the Full Objectively Assessed Need for Housing for the period 2011-31 down to 21,400 dwellings on the basis of more recent migration trends. This figure comprised 13,800 dwellings for North Hertfordshire and 7,600 dwellings for Stevenage.

5. There remains flexibility to allow the CLG Household Projections to be applied in the most rational and sensible fashion when calculating the OAN. Paragraph 017 of the "Housing and economic development needs assessments" section of the Planning Practice Guidance which sits alongside the National Planning Policy Framework states that:

"The household projections produced by the Department for Communities and Local Government are statistically robust and are based on nationally consistent assumptions. However, plan makers may consider sensitivity testing, specific to their local circumstances, based on alternative assumptions in relation to the underlying demographic projections and household formation rates. Account should also be taken of the most recent demographic evidence including the latest Office of National Statistics population estimates.
Any local changes would need to be clearly explained and justified on the basis of established sources of robust evidence.
Issues will vary across areas but might include:
* migration levels that may be affected by changes in employment growth or a one off event such as a large employer moving in or out of an area or a large housing development such as an urban extension in the last five years...." (emphasis added)


6. In the case of North Hertfordshire, migration rates over the past fifteen years have been impacted significantly by the Great Ashby development on the outskirts of Stevenage. Over 1,600 dwellings were delivered pursuant to this development between 2001 and 2011 in response to the housing requirements of Stevenage, of which Great Ashby forms part, although a majority of those dwellings actually fall within North Hertfordshire.

7. The significance of Great Ashby was acknowledged in the original North Hertfordshire SHMA from 2013 - paragraph 55 of that report noted that:

"An issue for North Hertfordshire is that over the past 11 years over 1,600 dwellings have been delivered in Great Ashby on the outskirts of Stevenage, or an average of 150 per annum. It can be argued that these dwellings are artificially boosting the number of in-migrants to North Hertfordshire, while fulfilling the role of meeting the needs of Stevenage."

8. The report seeks to make adjustments for long-term migration trends precisely over the period in which the Great Ashby development took place. If Great Ashby is relevant to in-migration levels, in that it artificially boosted them over the relevant timeframe, it will obviously need to be taken into account. The report goes on to show the effect upon the migration-led figures if the Great Ashby effect is removed from the equation - 150 homes per annum for 20 years means 3,000 fewer households. Given that the Full Objectively Assessed Need for Housing for North Hertfordshire for the period 2011-31 stands at 13,800 dwellings, an adjustment of this magnitude would be significant.

9. However, the flexibility granted under the Planning Practice Guidance to make allowance for the development at Great Ashby was not utilised, and the OAN was not adjusted to take account of Great Ashby and its effect upon in-migration figures. The original North Hertfordshire SHMA of 2013 dismissed the need to make an adjustment on the basis that "the number of migrants moving to or from North Hertfordshire is not closely linked to dwelling delivery in the whole of North Hertfordshire or in Great Ashby" (see paragraph 56 of that report). In support of this assertion, the report referred to Figure 8 (on page 15 of the report) which illustrated property sales in North Hertfordshire (including Great Ashby) compared with gross migration trends. The report concluded that Figure 8 displayed no meaningful correlation between in-migration and dwelling delivery rates (and, by implication, no justification for an adjustment under paragraph 17 of the Planning Practice Guidance) on the basis that "since 2008 it is noticeable that the number of in-migrants has not dropped in line with the drop in the number of sales of dwellings or completions since 2007."

10. An examination of Figure 8 shows this conclusion to be erroneous to a very significant degree. Firstly, there is a clear and direct correlation over the life of the graph between in-migration and both total property sales and total property completions, with each of the variables rising and falling in time with one another. Secondly, even if analysis is confined purely to Great Ashby completions versus in-migration, that correlation is still substantially there, with only one exception - an uptick in in-migrants in 2009-10 when Great Ashby completions decreased. However, for no obvious reason the report has taken that one exception as the justification for its conclusion that no correlation can be discerned.

11. Extrapolation of the historical in-migration data without adjustment for the obvious effect which Great Ashby has upon the figures will inevitably lead to a distorted conclusion. For what it is worth, I would note that the most recent ONS migration figures for North Hertfordshire (for the 12 month period to mid-2015) show net in-migration to the area of 425 persons; this compares with an average of 768 persons per annum over the previous ten year period.

12. The lack of meaningful and rational analysis in this section of the SHMA is underscored by the inclusion of completely conjectural statements ("If the dwellings in Great Ashby had not been completed, migrants who have been moving to Great Ashby may have moved to other areas of North Hertfordshire") and assertions which fly in the face of the empirical evidence presented in the report itself ("...a reduction in provision will...see more out-migration from North Herts.").

13. The failure of the original SHMA to take account of the Great Ashby development, a mistake which has fed through into the eventual OAN figure, is a fundamental error with a profound impact upon the eventual 'Policy On' Housing Requirement figure. More broadly, the clear lack of analytical discipline employed in considering the relationship between housing provision and in-migration suggests that any conclusions drawn are largely spurious. In the absence of a reliable and realistic Housing Requirement figure, the validity and credibility of the Local Plan is wholly undermined.

CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY
Green Belt
1. The proposal under the Local Plan to remove land from the Green Belt, both from sites around Knebworth and more generally in North Hertfordshire, is not consistent with national policy as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (paragraph 4.53 of the Plan).

2. Under the terms of the NPPF, "Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan." The notion of "exceptional circumstances" unavoidably involves an element of subjectivity, with the Department of Communities and Local Government content to entrust decision-makers with the obligation of reaching sound planning judgements on whether exceptionality exists in the circumstances of an individual case.

3. As a starting point, I would therefore draw attention to NHDC's purported approach to the question of Green Belt development. This is set out in Agenda Item No.6 of the Cabinet Meeting of 24 November 2014, being a Report of the Strategic Director of Planning, Housing and Enterprise. Paragraph 8.7 of that Report states that:

"In essence, the ability to use Green Belt to reduce housing targets requires exceedingly robust evidence (through some form of Green Belt review study) which shows that every part of a district's Green Belt is so essential to the purposes of a Green Belt that none of it can be released. Even if that level of evidence were to be established, the district would still have to consider the sustainability implications of a strategy which deflected their growth elsewhere."

4. This statement illustrates the fact that NHDC has its approach to Green Belt completely back to front. As noted above, the presumption enshrined in the NPPF is that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. By contrast NHDC is advocating a policy of resisting any reduction to housing target numbers unless it can be proved that every part of the Green Belt is indispensable; and even in the latter case it suggests that that might not be enough if wholesale preservation of the Green Belt would have a knock-on effect for sustainability elsewhere.

5. Paragraph 8.8 of the Report goes on to say that:
"The Green Belt Review finds that there are parts of land which, whilst they contribute to the overall Green Belt, are not essential for the fundamental purpose of the Green Belt of preventing towns from merging. Coupled with the Sustainability Appraisal's finding that it is better to meet needs in such a way that the main population centers of the district are able to take growth, the plan proposes amending Green Belt boundaries accordingly."
6. Again, this reasoning is not in line with the requirements of the NPPF. Amendment of the Green Belt boundaries cannot be justified purely on the basis that parts of the Belt are not essential in preventing the merger of conurbations; if nothing else, paragraph 80 of the NPPF sets out four other basic purposes which the Green Belt serves. Equally, it is not enough simply to say that it would be "better" if the main population centers were able to take growth. Neither of these reasons is in itself sufficient to establish that exceptional circumstances exist.

7. This, then, goes to the nub of the Report's deficiency. At no point are any exceptional circumstances put forward in the Report to justify the Green Belt Review. Indeed the phrase "exceptional circumstances" is not employed at any point in the Report.

8. Some analysis of the existence (or otherwise) of exceptional circumstances was eventually undertaken in NHDC's Housing and Green Belt background paper of 2016 - but given that this paper was produced nearly two years after the recommendation by the Strategic Director (reaffirmed in the Draft Local Plan of 2014) that the Green Belt boundaries be amended, it is difficult to avoid inferring that the background paper was produced in an attempt to back up the unjustified conclusion of the Strategic Director's Report rather than to undertake an objective assessment of whether exceptional circumstances exist.

9. Even if the Housing and Green Belt background paper of 2016 were to be taken in good faith, it provides nothing in the way of specific evidence to support the proposition that exceptional circumstances exist. The paper confines itself to broad generic observations that the objectively assessed needs of the District are considerable; that there are limits to the availability of land suitable for sustainable development; and that the social and economic roles of sustainable development might not be achieved without resort to Green Belt land. None of these reasons is obviously exceptional - indeed the fact that both NHDC and neighbouring authorities are seeking to revise the Green Belt to such a significant extent and in such a blanket fashion strongly suggests that there is nothing remotely "exceptional" about the exercise at all.

10. The Conclusions section of the Housing and Green Belt background paper of 2016 again highlights the back-to-front approach which NHDC has adopted in its thinking. Paragraph 4.90 states that:

"It is clear from both the SHLAA and this analysis that a number of potential development sites in North Hertfordshire are constrained by policy, heritage, ecological or other considerations. It is equally plain that, if the Council were to impose blanket restrictions upon development on any (combination) of the grounds above it would face severe challenges in meeting the identified needs for housing and, albeit to a lesser extent, employment."

It is not for the Council to decide whether to impose "blanket restrictions" upon development on any of the grounds mentioned above. Those blanket restrictions have already been imposed by the NPPF; it is for the Council to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist which allow for those restrictions to be pared back at all.

Equally, paragraph 4.94 of the paper goes on to say:

"Given the number of sites affected, it is similarly considered that any blanket policy of restraint on the grounds of agricultural land quality, surface water flood risk and / or heritage would be likely to impinge on the achievement of sustainable development for the same reasons."

Again, there is already a policy of restraint on these grounds as set out in the NPPF. It is for the Council to explain why it believes that the particular circumstances merit a deviation from that policy.

11. Ultimately there appears to be an unwillingness on the part of NHDC to acknowledge (or an inability to appreciate) that the NPPF does not always allow development to proceed in full, and that the presumption is that the Green Belt should not be touched in normal circumstances. The Housing and Green Belt background paper sets much store by the judgment in the Calverton Parish Council case of last year in seeking to explain its decision-making process. The Council might have done well to pay heed to Jay J.'s observation in that case:

"Review of the Green Belt in the face of sustainable development requires exceptional circumstances. Refraining from carrying out sustainable development, and thereby causing social and economic damage by omission, does not."

12. In summary, then, a reading of the various reports produced by NHDC leads to the conclusion that a decision was made to amend the Green Belt boundaries without any exceptional circumstances being identified; and that a subsequent report intended to provide some ex post facto justification for that decision failed to offer anything other than the most generic and non-specific reasons for the re-classifying of numerous sites.

13. Turning to the specific proposal to remove land at Deards End, Knebworth (Site 52 - Preferred Options KB1) from the Green Belt, I would simply note that the North Hertfordshire Green Belt Review 2016 classified the site as making a significant contribution to Green Belt purposes. In such circumstances NHDC would be expected to provide some compelling reasons for the land to nevertheless have been removed. In the event the only site-specific explanation is contained in a site selection matrix forming an appendix to the Housing and Settlement Hierarchy Paper 2014:
"Ability to make contribution to overall housing requirements and provide infrastructure with potential wider community benefits. Site-specific criteria and proposed dwelling estimate allow for appropriate mitigation of potential impacts and address a number of issues raised through the consultation. On balance, positive opportunities afforded by this site are considered to outweigh harms."
This wording is, if anything, more reminiscent of the test under the first limb of paragraph 14 of the NPPF ("any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole...."), than of the test of what might constitute exceptional circumstances. It is in any event difficult to conclude that the NPPF's concession to exceptional circumstances is intended to be applied in this particular instance - if that were the case, the protection afforded by the NPPF to the Green Belt would be little or non-existent.

See attachment