Policy SP8: Housing

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

My response and objection to the current proposed plan for the unnecessary and unrequired development of site BA1 specifically, but also Baldock as a whole are based on the following:
- Tests of Soundness
- General guidelines in the National Planning Policy Framework
- My own facts and views as a resident of Baldock
- The overall unfounded, unsupported and incomprehensible notion that this country, requires any additional housing to be built whatsoever.

I find this difficult to write as my views "that of a passionate individual, wanting the best for all generations", however (backed up by evidence and data from the Office of National Statistics), clearly states, that there is absolutely no requirement at all for the building of a single house in England (only stats I researched). This alone should be enough to put a stop to the absurd waste of time and money put into development requests such as this one.

In summary of these statistics and one of the reasons why I believe that this development plan fails against all 4 of the tests of soundness, is as follows:
- 695,233 people were born in England last year
- 529,650 people died in England last year (an increase of 5.6% from the previous year and rising)
- This leaves a surplus of 165,583 people in England every year

- 142,680 houses were built in England last year (increased this year, but final quarter not finished)
- Leaving a surplus of 22,903 people in England without a house being built for them every year

* 22,903 in an England population of 54.3 million, is a number that I suggest would never be discussed, as it is insignificant to what is portrayed.
* 27% of the 695,233 births in the UK last year (that's 187,713) were to mothers born outside of the UK
* Add to that, emigration is almost at an all-time low, immigration is the highest it's ever been, this should be sufficient to close the topic of building an entire town within a town, effectively joining it to neighbouring villages. All on green belt land, all of which contravenes sections 79, 80, 94, 109 and 182 (tests of soundness)

If that isn't enough, how about in England (not the UK), there are 610,123 empty homes, of which 205,821 have been empty for 6 months or longer. As I mentioned above, you could be led into assuming a "potential" requirement for just under 23,000 homes (Brexit and immigration decisions aside), yet with the aforementioned statistic, this clearly shows a surplus of x hundred thousand houses in England.
The real issue is not housing supply, it's housing prices. Building more houses on green belt land, does not reduce the cost of housing. The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. We must address the root cause of the issue and not continue to apply temporary measures with permanent repercussions "applying a plaster to fix a cut jugular"

On my own personal views and opinions as a resident in Baldock (specifically on North Road with views of the rural setting which is now classified BA1), please see below:
1. Train Station Car Park - Simply cannot take any more vehicles. If you arrive past 7:30/8am all spaces are gone, and people park on Bygrave and North Road because of it. Adding the additional population of circa 3500 houses (7-10,500 people), this is simply not going to work. The station car park, much like the station itself, cannot be further developed to add additional capacity. With every square inch of land being eyed for housing which is not required, adding a car park elsewhere also seems unlikely.

2.Train Service - Recent suggested timetables and revision of service from GOVIA would make the service to and from Baldock significantly poorer than it current is, and with the addition of xx% from the potential 7-10,500 new inhabitants. This would also make Baldock (along with other growing issues) a non-commuter town, affecting its desirability, property market and less requirement for more housing.

3. Train Station Facilities - The station itself cannot be enlarged or redeveloped because of the site it is situated in. The platforms are limited in length and can only take so many passengers and for that matter physical carriages of a train (current plans to decrease train seats but increase carriage numbers, does not help this issue). There is no room for facilities and services such as shops, coffee (current gentlemen running his own coffee business from a van, would struggle to serve this amount of people) and additional seating etc.

4. The Town Centre - The traffic speaks for itself (although little to no evidence or solutions from NHDC have provided on this), the car parking or lack of; becomes a farcical subject when considering an additional 7000 to 10,500 vehicles. The Town and high street have a desirable and increasingly rare character, historical nature and setting, which encompasses so much of what Great Britain once was. The presence and sprawl of large high street brands and corporations has been kept to a minimum, which is its best quality.

5. North Road - A507 (specific as I am a resident on this road) - It is not possible to leave my property and turn left towards the train station before 9/9:30am unless I have absolutely no deadline for what I'm leaving for, or set off with 30/40 minutes' spare to drive 1.1 miles to the doctor surgery. On Monday's specifically, the traffic passes my property and over the brow of the hill, up to the motorway service, every single Monday. That's 1.6 miles of traffic just to the cross junction where the A507 meets the B656, plus which ever direction you go from there. Adding a circa 3000 housing estate in the middle of that is mindless and no suitable provisions have been considered or proposed as part of the plan. Walking down North Road/A507 with a baby in a pushchair is honestly something I tried once and never again. The condition of the paving, lack of lighting and frequent speeding of vehicles is just too dangerous.
Something to add: 1 day in October, a mysterious camera appeared on a council sign post on the entrance to my property, there was a lock box attached, which I presumed protected some recording equipment. Only a few days before, some hedge rows were cut, which resolved the mystery of why that was carried out. Exactly 24 hours later, the camera was gone. Upon querying my neighbour on this, I was informed this was a traffic survey related to the proposed plan. I find it taxing to write down my thoughts on the fact the ONLY evidence collected on traffic, was for 1 single day in October (a Monday agreeably) at a point where traffic builds a further 0.7 miles past where this was situated, when so much is at stake. This is a mockery of the plan and whole process.

6. Services and Infrastructure - There are little to no (in some cases) services passed Salisbury Road. This would be of huge expense, disruption and in certain circumstances reduction of existing services, when extended in the proposed development site. For example, I have no Gas, neither does any resident further up on North Road, Water pressure, is significantly poor, and in my opinion unusable to maintain a property and garden such as ours, there is no mains sewage, the broadband speed and consistency is poor considering the distance from the Exchange and being the year 2016; then there's the electricity. I've had 14 power cuts in 3 years, of which 4 have been over 12 hours long (2 caused by speeding vehicles down North Road colliding with pylons). These are not services that will be enriched or improved, for the proposed settlement(s). This will only further drain and reduce the already poor quality of these services.

7. Property prices - I, like many paid a premium to live where I do, for the views and rural setting in which my property sits. The proposed development, will come down into sight spoiling this setting and premium in which I worked long and hard to achieve. No one knows how their own property price will be affected, but going on supply and demand, I would suggest it would be a negative effect.

8. Emergency and local services - I've yet to see any impact or plan on police, fire, ambulance and doctor's services to the local area, but I would be extremely surprised if the current services could cope with another 3000+ houses/7000 to 10,500+ individuals. Who will pay for these services when they have to be expanded and resourced as an afterthought? Should I expect and increase in my Council tax soon!? The current doctors surgery services 4 or 5 towns and villages, with stretched capacity and resourcing with the current population it serves.

10. Child services and entertainment - Anyone living in Baldock already knows how oversubscribed schools, nurseries, play groups and support groups are, with many travelling to Hitchin and Letchworth to sort after these services. Many new build settlements in and around this area have thrown in schools and nurseries to satisfy planning and locals, then before the settlement is complete, they are oversubscribed and have required 2 additional extensions. The building is now complete, and I can report, all services are oversubscribed and full leaving residents to have to go elsewhere.

Applying the above to the tests of soundness makes for short reading, as clearly there is little effort, thought and consideration to the fundamentals of expanding a town with another town. Infrastructure, services, sustainability, ethics, existing dwellers and habitants. That is without addressing the elephant in the room of there being no requirement for any further housing in the UK period (as per my stats).

Lastly, I quote section 79 and 80 from NPPF (Protecting Green Belt Land)
79). The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental
aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land
permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their
openness and their permanence.

80). Green Belt serves five purposes:
- to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas - FAILED
- to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another - FAILED
- to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment - FAILED
- to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and - FAILED
- to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict
and other urban land. - FAILED

RADWELL PARISH MEETING RESPONSE to NHDC LOCAL PLAN 2011-31
A special Parish meeting on November 10th 2016 was attended by about a third of the electors in the Parish.

Radwell Parish Meeting is very concerned about the North Hertfordshire DC Local Plan submission.
We are pleased to note there are no plans to expand Radwell village which is in the Green Belt.

We do not believe that the proposals are justified, effective or consistent with national policy, especially as regards the site BA1 to the North of Baldock.

General overview:
NHDC commissioned the North Hertfordshire New Settlement Study (April 2016) which concludes that a new settlement/Garden City will be required to meet housing needs post-2031. The proposed local plan makes no contribution to this and should be withdrawn and replaced with a plan that makes progress towards this objective. In particular, Baldock developments proposed will enlarge the town by about 80% of which the largest part will be Area BA1 which is separated from the town by the railway. It is a location which has nothing to recommend it. The National Planning Policy Framework requires that, for proposals of this sort, infrastructure should be planned at the same time as the Local Plan is prepared but there are no details of this in the plan - the new railway crossings which are proposed, will only worsen the existing overcrowded vehicular access to the town.

It is not contested that the only reason BA1 has been included is the fact that the land-owner (Hertfordshire County Council) is willing to sell the land for development, despite its being green-belt. It is inconceivable that this area would have been selected for a major development of Baldock, were it not for this fact, which is not a 'planning' criterion at all. The government has said that assessed need does not, on its own, represent a case for building on green belt land, but that is exactly what the North Herts plan does.

Specific comments:
Radwell is North of Baldock, which is our nearest town. There is already a huge amount of traffic on North Road A507 in morning and afternoon rush hours, between the Radwell area and Baldock. The major housing development (BA1) is planned to extend Baldock northwards.
This will inevitably produce a great increase in traffic going to and from Baldock station, schools and town centre and through the already-inadequate railway bridge. The plan offers no solution to this central weakness and in this respect is unsustainable and not effective.

Although primary schooling may be provided within the development, some parents - particularly those seeking a Catholic or C of E school - will choose primary schools in the current town. A secondary school in the BA1 area would not have sustainable pupil numbers until most of the housing is occupied, and probably not even then, at today's level of school funding. The current Baldock secondary school has site capacity for substantial expansion. Thus pupils of secondary age will also be taken to school via this same narrow railway bridge. The plan's vague suggestion of 'secondary age education provision' (p.61, h) ignores this problem and is therefore unsound.

The suggested new road crossing over the railway to the east of the development may provide for residents seeking to travel East or South on the A505. Those heading for the station or town centre, and living at the East end of the development, might choose to use this crossing; if so they will then use the Royston Road (B656), already overcrowded at rush-hour. The expansion of the business areas (BE2, BA10) will also increase traffic on the B656. This road does not have sufficient capacity, nor room to be widened. In failing to recognise this, the plan is unsound and unsustainable.

Residents of BA1 travelling West will also contribute to A507 traffic under the railway to join the B656 West-bound.

In short, development BA1 will be quite unsustainable unless an alternative way can be found for access to the town, station and schools. The plans ignore this problem. Site BA1 was not, and would never have been, selected by rational thought, but only because the landowner (the County Council) has offered it for development. Development planning on the basis of landowners' offers is irrational and unsustainable.

The current rail service to Baldock will not accommodate an increased population. The provision of more, and longer, trains will require enlargement of the station, and much more car parking (already a severe problem). This is ignored in the plan. This point applies to all substantial development of the town, i.e. BA2, 3 and 4 as well as BA1. In the Local Plan Submission (p. 61, Policy SP14: Site BA1, e(ii)) there is a 'requirement' for safe access routes to/from, and upgrades to, Baldock Station, but the plan itself offers no solution as to how these are to be achieved, and if not achievable, the use of the word 'requirement' amounts to a recognition that the plan is undeliverable, and therefore unjustified and not effective.

This Local Plan has little sign of infrastructure and strategic planning. Adding to existing towns without proper planning for cycle paths, roads, railways, parking etc is chaotic. We need a proper long term plan; not a rapid reaction to a set of statistics for housing numbers, which themselves seem to be proving inaccurate. No justification is offered for building in the Green Belt - clearly the reason is not a planning argument, but simply the presence of a willing seller of the land in question. The plan is therefore not consistent with national policy.

NHDC should propose only reasonable numbers of houses, not on the Green Belt, and not enormously enlarging existing settlements. Brownfield sites should be used and plans for a new town should be advanced.

My wife and I would like to make the following objections to the Local Plan:-

Object to Chapter 4, Policy SP8

The plan provides excess housing to the detriment of open countryside. Sites, including SP2, have been added belatedly and should be removed as they are not needed. There is no policy basis for increasing the buffer to 7% from the previously accepted 3%.

Object to Chapter 4, Policy SP2

Flawed evidence is used to identify sustainable villages, which results in isolated villages with little infrastructure being seen as suitable for significant development. Moreover, Whitwell is accessed by very narrow country lanes requiring passing places.

Object to Chapter 13, Site Allocation SP2

There is no need for SP2 to meet housing need. The NHDC approach is not sound. It does not comply with NPPF as no consideration has been taken of flood risk and a sequential approach has not been followed in site selection. It was also added at a late stage with an allocation of greater than 5ha - this conflicts with NHDC evidence that large housing extensions to Whitwell could have an unacceptable visual impact on cross country views.

Object to Chapter 13, Site Allocation SP2

The site has a known and identified high risk of surface water flooding as recognised in the Council's Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. As the NPPF states that development should be steered to areas with the lowest chance of flooding, site SP2 should only be considered if there is an identified need that cannot be met elsewhere.

Object to Chapter 13, Site Allocation SP2

The proposed development is not in a sustainable location and will depend on private transport for most travel; this in a village which is already badly congested.

NPPF Requirement to empower local people to shape their surroundings (Paragraph 150)

Our local community is ignored in the Local Plan. NHDC is wholly aware of local feeling towards potential development of this site. The site is not needed to meet the identified housing need, yet NHDC Planners remain determined to use this site notwithstanding local objections, environmental and flooding concerns, together with the visual impact on the intrinsic beauty of the countryside. Thames Water state lack of sewerage capacity. The Planners, inexplicably, even ignore their own Planning Committee who recently rejected the site for development.


Object to the allocation of SP2 for housing

The Local Plan Preferred Option allocated the site for Green Belt, which was fully supported by the Parish Council. No justification for the site no longer being categorised as Green Belt is provided by NHDC. Latest figures (reduction in OAN) show that SP2 is not needed for housing. The Local Plan pragmatically adds in late sites. The submission has not given the Parish Council or Whitwell villagers the opportunity to be empowered and has ignored their wishes for SP2 to remain Green Belt.

It is for the reasons above that we consider SP2 should be removed from the 2011 - 2031 Local Plan.

We are disappointed with the proposed submission which appears to be looking at the identified sites, within the overall proposal, individually as opposed to a collection.
Codicote/Kimpton/Knebworth and Whitwell are in close proximity to each other and the high density housing proposed will impact adversely on an already overstretched infrastructure.
The transport network is a particular problem. Access/through routes for the villages included in the proposal during the weekday rush hour and Saturday mornings are already at capacity, Codicote High Street in-particular exasperated by the lack of off road parking. The daily commute, as after all these are commuter locations, in /out to places of work, the rail network and schools is difficult in itself and it is intolerable that it can take 40 minutes plus to travel to and from Codicote and Welwyn Garden City.
Local junior schools are at capacity, with some children having to go elsewhere, and there are no secondary schools. Children are bussed in and out of the villages putting further strain on the crowded road network as buses negotiate narrow high streets and connecting access roads.
Codicote's and the surrounding villages Green Belt are being ignored by inappropriate development and we are set to lose swathes of wildlife habitat along with public bridleways and the local inhabitants right to the enjoyment of open space.
There are many more negative aspects of the proposed local plan as a whole and, whilst it is appreciated that there is a nationwide need for additional housing that, on the scale proposed for Codicote and the surrounding villages, is both poorly structured with a total disregard for the already stretched capacity.

The overall Plan will have a detrimental effect on the Village and the village community. Whilst it is true that the individual development sites are less 500 houses, this is a technicality as the developments together total 663 dwellings. To meet the objectives, the proposals regarding Knebworth should have been subject to a Strategic Planning review which would show that it is neither practical, nor does it meet community needs for sustainable growth.
Specifically, my objections to the Plan are as follows: -
1. The residents have chosen Knebworth for its rural village setting. The additional housing and location of the developments will effectively make the village part of Stevenage.
2. There is no suggestion that the new homes will are needed to support new or existing commercial enterprises. Indeed with regard to KB3, housing will replace an existing business. Therefore the village is being asked to support businesses elsewhere.
3. The majority of the new developments will be on land currently designated as Green Belt. This is against Government Policy and such space between towns should be retained to protect the integrity of the Village.
4. Currently the road system in Knebworth is congested with improvements to some of the arterial roads impossible due to narrow railway bridges supporting the main lines from Kings Cross/St Pancras. The main road through Knebworth is the B197 where there is continual congestion through the working day. On occasions, when there is an incident between Junctions 6 and 7 of the adjacent A1M, this problem creates gridlock in the High Street where not even the emergency vehicles are able to operate. The proposed increase of 31% of houses will create at least that proportion of extra traffic which will be unsustainable.
5. In addition to the situation in 4. above, there will be considerable disruption and inconvenience to the residents caused by heavy lorries transporting equipment, raw materials etc., to the respective sites. As the proposal is for the period to 2031, this represents a further 15 years of misery.
6. It has been proposed that the railway service to Kings Cross will be effectively reduced by the removal of the fast services at rush hour. Railway travellers to London will know well enough that the trains are already crowded when arriving at Knebworth in the morning. As the vast majority of new residents will be working outside Knebworth, the reduction in train services and the increase in usage of at least 31% will cause even more overcrowded trains.
7. There is only one medical practice Knebworth. As people in the village will be aware, the practice is already under pressure in terms of facilities /appointments etc. and the additional influx of people will swamp the practice.
8. Much of the proposed area for houses are vulnerable to surface water flooding and the construction of additional roads, houses and the infrastructure will increase that risk, not only for the proposed houses, but also for current residents. It is also understood that there are capacity issues at the Rye Meads Sewage Treatment Works which serve the area
9. The building of 663 new homes will have a dramatic impact on the need for education - particularly pupils at Primary and Secondary School. Based upon figures from the ONS adjusted for the likely demographic profile for the occupants of the new houses, there will be just over 1000 additional children aged 5-18 requiring school places. Only a Primary school with 200 pupils is currently available in Knebworth, with the Secondary school pupils travelling to Stevenage. Whilst an additional Primary school is proposed, this will be insufficient and it should be noted that a previous promise following a Development Plan to open another school has never been implemented.

See attachment

See attachment

1. There is no strategy meaning this plan is unlikely to be effective. This plan is not a co-ordinated development and there are no overall infrastructure delivery plans. This will likely result in the piecemeal development of Knebworth with no single developer responsible for delivering the necessary infrastructure to support these plans (e.g., roads, schools, drainage, doctors). A co-ordinated plan is required to
deliver a plan for the village as a whole and not four independent sections.
2. This plan identifies four local housing allocations within Knebworth for an estimated 598 new homes and further 65 homes have already been built or granted planning permission. This is a 31% increase in the size of Knebworth. 150 homes being built at Woolmer Green and also ~70 on the Oddessy site have not been taken into account in these numbers. Overall this is huge number of house for one area, and are not justified when the Stevenage west land is reserved and not being developed in this plan (3,100 homes). Why does this plan not propose developing this area? This could considerably reduce the scale of development of the villages surrounding Stevenage in NH.
3. The plan does include a new primary school but the proposals are not specific and need to be more detailed about what will actually be provided. Knebworth does not currently have a secondary school, with children having to travel to Stevenage, Hitchin or further for secondary schooling. The plan does not explain how it will actually support increased secondary education requirement needs associated with an increase in population. One solution would be to include a new secondary school in the plan specifically rather than vague non-committal statements (e.g., KB4 / Up to 4ha of land for education purposes subject to up-to-date assessments of need).
4. The green belt surrounding Knebworth makes a significant contribution to protecting the space between the village and the surrounding villages and Stevenage. Removing it will likely mean there is a considerable danger of coalescence, destroying the identity of Knebworth.
5. Already the B197 is a very busy road and traffic often queues right back from Stevenage to Knebworth in rush hour, taking up to 30 mins to drive. I live on Watton Road in Knebworth and this road is also solid in rush hour. The plan does not include infrastructure development plans in an around Knebworth to address managing the increased burden of traffic associated with increased housing.
6. This plan has no considerations for the local economy with no proposals that support job creation in the village. At the moment Chas Low, the builder's merchants, on the KB3 site has a positive impact on the local economy - once this relocates this will be lost. The KB3 site should include retail/office premises - currently it is all housing.
7. Three proposed areas for development (KB2, KB3 and KB4) have long-standing drainage issues which the plan does not address in detail. The 31% increase in the size of Knebworth will also place a huge burden on Rye Meads Sewage Treatment works. The capacity of Rye Meads Sewage Treatment works will need to be increased - the current plan only supports part of the development, not all.
8. '13.200 A planning application has recently been submitted for a new library, doctors surgery and pharmacy on the site of the current library within the identified village centre' These are not new services, it is to replace the current ones. The plan is misleading here. Furthermore, these services are already stretched and the plan does not take into account the expansion of these services needed to support a 31% population increase.
9. The plan will have a negative impact on the surrounding countryside and damages two conservations areas in the Knebworth.

Concern about the loss of the Green Belt between Knebworth and Stevenage, there is the likely hood of coalescence. There would be a severe loss of productive agricultural land. Concern about the water pumping station above the borehole. There is a danger that building could contaminate an essential water supply due to the increased sewage and other pollutants passing though the area.
Concern about the increase in capacity of traffic on Swangleys Lane (mostly single track) and Watton Road. Currently Watton Road is heavily used by Funeral Directors and Mourners travelling to the Crematorium. This can cause traffic problems additional to day to day usage. Once the road leaves the village it becomes a narrow county lane. Within the village it is single track with passing bays due to commuter parking. This causes severe traffic issues at the junction with London Road and Stevenage Road. There would be severe access issues for construction vehicles.
There has been no consultation with villagers about these sites, the indication on this documentment came as a surprise to residents.
The plan should be withdrawn. A better solution already exists in the West of Stevenage plan with reserved land capable of 3100homes, the infrastructure has been planned together with new access roads from the A1(M).

See attached

My objection to the Plan is the failure of the Council to justify a long series of proposals for the removal of land from the Green Belt around towns and villages. Such justification should have specifically included the demonstration by the Council of the 'exceptional circumstances' for removing land from the Green Belt on a site by site, and settlement by settlement basis, and setting them out in the Plan. Instead, the Council appears to have relied on a blanket assumption that all housing and other development needs, not just in the District but in Stevenage and Luton as well, identified through their background studies, must be met in full, despite national planning policy and planning case law to the contrary. If the Plan is allowed to proceed as published by the Council, it would commit future generations to continuing development which would cause incalculable harm to the Green Belt.

I believe that the Council has not considered all reasonable alternative approaches to meeting the District's development needs, particularly when setting a Housing Target, and that this failure has contributed to an unsound Strategy. A realistic contribution to housing capacity from a greater range of sources including windfall sites, changes of use in accordance with current permitted development rights, and other measures promoting the recycling of previously developed land and property, should have been included in the Plan, and a Housing Target then determined that reflects both development needs and the nationally important constraints that exist in this part of Hertfordshire.

The proposal to move Green Belt boundaries from their current long established position solely because there is an equally or more defensible location elsewhere is contrary to national Green Belt policy. The stated reason for doing so is not an exceptional circumstance, and is not justified. The removal of Green Belt status from the land affected would be likely to cause significant harm to the Green Belt and it's overall purpose.

See attachment

I would like to make my comments as following

Object to Chapter 4, Policy SP8

The Plan is not sound as it provides for too much housing at the expense of open countryside. Sites, including SP2 have been added at a very late stage. There is no policy basis for increasing the buffer from the previously accepted 3% to 7%

Object to Chapter 4, Policy SP2

It is not sound as the evidence used to identify sustainable villages is flawed. This results in isolated villages with no facilities such as senior school and shops and very little public transport being seen as suitable for significant development. In addition Whitwell is accessed by narrow lanes often requiring passing places. More evidence is needed on impact on impact of car usage. Whitwell should be categorised as a 'B' village

Object to Chapter 13, site allocation SP2

The site is not a sustainable location and will depend on private transport for most travel. The NHDC Planning Committee on August 25 determined that required sustainable drainage (SUDS) would have an unacceptable impact on the visual impact of the site and the application was refused. Alternative solutions will require underground tanks and pumps which are also not sustainable

NPPF requirement to empower local people to shape their surroundings (para 150)

The Local Plan has ignored our local community. NHDC is well aware of local feeling. The site is not needed to meet identified housing need and yet their planners stay determined to use this site even with known objections, environmental and flooding concerns together with the visual impact on the intrinsic beauty of the countryside. Thames Water see lack of sewer capacity. The Planners even ignore their own Planning Committee who recently rejected the site for development

Object to the allocation of SP2 for housing

The Local Plan preferred Option allocated the site for Green Belt. This was fully supported by the Parish Council. NHDC has not justified the site no longer being Green Belt. The reduction in OAN shows that SP2 is not needed for housing. Green Belt is also needed to mitigate for Green Belt being lost elsewhere in the District where additional housing is being built in more sustainable locations. The Local Plan has added late sites almost accidentally. The submission has not given the Parish Council or villagers the chance to be empowered and have ignored their wishes for SP2 to remain Green Belt

For the reasons above I consider that SP 2 should be removed from the 2011-2033 Local Plan. I would also like the Parish Council to represent me to the Inspector

See attachment

See attached