Policy SP8: Housing

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attachment

Sites KB1 & KB2 are located where the road access to the locations is limited to Victorian designed and built underpasses and weight limited (7.5T) overbridge crossing the East Coast Main Railway line. KB4 access is via a narrow lane constricted by traffic calming chicanes. KB3 is currently a builders yard accessed from the heavily congested B197. All locations lead off the B197 which it is understood now carries more daily traffic than when it bypassed by the A1(M). The B197 through Knebworth is often gridlocked at all times of the day not just at peak times. See attached images of the access bridges.
As there is no provision in the plan for local employment all of the proposed housing will be for commuters who will need to travel through the already heavily congested choke points. Development of site KB3 will result in the loss of local employment.
Knebworth railway station on the ECML is heavily used and it understood that at peak times there are no additional train paths available through the twin track section South of Knebworth. Early morning trains often arrive at the Station already full with standing passengers so that those waiting at Knebworth cannot board. The Station car park and surrounding residential roads are already choked with parked cars and no more can be accommodated. There is no space available in the village centre for additional parking provision.
Due to the heavy congestion travel by cycle out of Knebworth is hazardous.
In view of this additional housing in the proposed Knebworth locations will create.
All sites apart from KB3, which would provide an insignificant amount of additional housing, impinges on the Green belt land surrounding Knebworth.
The proposed additional housing would overload the already heavily used village facilities - Doctors surgery - Dentists - Primary School.

Whilst I support the concept of further house building in areas such as Baldock, the means of delivering this set out in the local plan are not appropriate.

The increase in size of Baldock (the smallest of the towns in the area) is disproportionately larger than that proposed for other towns in the area, such as Hitchin and Letchworth.

Infrastructure must be protected and enhanced before construction commences. The threat of the loss of train services to Baldock, which are already at capacity at current levels, must be ended for this plan to be workable; this number of houses cannot be built at the same time as the train service is slashed. The likely increase in traffic to Baldock will surely overburden already 'at capacity' parking and road use levels in the town centre.

Baldock is a great place to live and it should shoulder some of the burden of our need for more housing. However, infrastructure issues must be solved before construction commences. I have not been persuaded that the current plan provides for suitable infrastructure improvements to meet the demands that will be placed by the proposed increase in Baldock's population.

I strongly object to the proposed expansion of the village of Knebworth on the grounds that such proposals are inconsistent with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), most notably Green Belt Policy. The town of Stevenage and villages of Knebworth and Woolmer Green now risk being effectively merged into one conurbation with the loss of Green Belt land and open countryside.
It is unsustainable for a village the size of Knebworth to accommodate such a huge increase (31%) in housing development. No consideration has been given to the negative impact on infrastructure, employment, education, amenities and drainage which gives rise to grave concerns on the effectiveness of the Local Plan.

See attached

We support and endorse Ickleford Parish Council's 7 objections and concerns. In addition to these itemised objections and concerns we fear that the impact of a total of 319 new homes would destroy the character of our lovely village. Images of increased traffic together with loss of green belt, sewerage & flooding problems, lack of proper consultation, air quality,no coordination with neighbouring authorities and relocation of the historic school present a horror scenario. We do not wish our village to be attacked in this way. There must be other more suitable areas to build homes on. Look elsewhere.

I wish to make representations regarding the above plan to be placed before the Inspector. I am not using your form as its layout does not suit the comments I wish to make.

I wish to object formally to proposals KB1, KB2 and KB4.

GREEN BELT
The existing Green Belt around Knebworth was established to prevent development and uncontrolled urban expansion. Government policy requires that all development in the Green Belt should be rejected unless there are specific overriding requirements for that development. No such requirements have been put forward leading to the obvious assumption that they exist.
Policies KB1 and KB2 propose the creation of areas of defendable Green Belt to the North of KB1 and the South of KB2. It is the existing Green Belt that must be defended. If that does not happen, clearly North Herts cannot be trusted to protect any Green Belt which is necessary to maintain the identity of the village, prevent coalescence with adjoining settlements and protect high quality agricultural land.

Other Objections should not be necessary but in view of North Herts apparent intention to ignore the Government's Green Belt requirements they clearly are.

TRAFFIC
Paragraphs 13.195 and 13.196 set out the traffic problems as existing. Paragraph 13.197 ducks responsibility for dealing with them. At peak periods, and that is not just the rush hour, the centre of the village is completely gridlocked. In the morning rush hour the B197 is often blocked as far as J6 of the A1(M), and in the afternoon rush hour as far as Tesco at the Roebuck.

The two railway bridges at Station Road and Gun Road are both accidents waiting to happen. Both are low and narrow with narrow pavements on one side only. The Western approaches to both are from the Northwest where drivers are often blinded by the morning sun.

The above are existing problems which would be greatly exacerbated by increasing the population by 30% as you propose especially if any new homes are occupied by a high percentage of commuters. This is especially true of the bridge issues in relation to sites KB1 and KB2 with a total of 384 additional dwellings proposed where most owners would probably be two car families or worse. The end result is likely to be total gridlock and not just when motorway traffic is diverted through the village.

RAILWAY
Commuter trains are already arriving full at Knebworth and commuter parking is as you know a increasing problem. Now the frequency of trains may be downgraded and you are proposing a massive new residential development in Baldock, further up the line. Also there are proposals for more development in surrounding villages where the commuters use Knebworth station and park in the surrounding streets. Is it intended that the whole village will eventually be double yellow banded?

Clearly your proposals are likely to make these problems unacceptably worse.

DRAINAGE
Your draft finally acknowledges these issues, but no large scale development of the nature you propose can take place before they are actually dealt with. This presumably includes the major undertaking of a new sewage link to Rye Meads, about 11 miles as the crow flies.

With specific reference to KB2 I presume in the absence of any comment to the contrary that it is intended to leave the developer to resolve the flooding problems. As you know there were severe floods in 1989 and 2014 when a number of houses in Orchard Way and Broom Grove were flooded at considerable cost and anguish to the residents due to extreme weather (which is on the increase due to climate change), failure to maintain existing drains including those serving the motorway and the natural lines of drainage across the Northern half of KB2 and along Gypsy Lane from both ends. After the 1989 flood, I understand that a drainage maintenance scheme was put in place but this was subsequently an unacceptable victim of recession. Any development on this site would clearly need to be carried out by a single developer with a new drainage maintenance scheme put in place and guaranteed in perpetuity. Clearly a ploughed field soaks up water better than a housing estate, so any scheme must be very robust and include the existing carriageway of Gypsy Lane.
IF AS A RESULT OF ANY DEVELOPMENT ON THAT PART OF KB2 NORTH OF GYPSY APPROVED BY NORTH HERTS DC THE FLOODING PROBLEMS IN ORCHARD WAY AND BROOM GROVE GET WORSE IN EXTENT OR FREQUENCY THEN NORTH HERTS DC WILL BE CULPABLE.

OTHER VILLAGE FACILITIES
13.183 states that Knebworth offers a good range of facilities, but these are of course only suitable for the existing population.

13.200 The proposed new surgery and library building offers one extra consulting room necessary for the current population and a downgraded library to volunteer operation with insufficient parking. Both will be totally inadequate for even a small increase in population and therefore a waste of money.

There is a provision for a new primary school in KB2, although no suggestion precisely where or how it would be accessed. I suspect this has not yet even been considered. A similar provision was made in 1976 when the Orchard Way estate was built. It never happened and the site became Bellamy Close many years later. Will this promise go the same way?

13.192 The council should also consider that the existing village school (like all others) is a cause of traffic congestion twice a day and any new school would create a similar problem.

No consideration has been given to employment for the new residents which strengthens the view tat most, if not all, would be commuters.

KB3 I presume the designation of this site for housing only is an error. The frontage to the High St at ground floor level should of course be commercial with residential above and behind.

CONCLUSION
I consider that as far as it concerns Knebworth this is not a properly considered Draft District plan. Apart from the capacity of Rye Meads none of the potential problems of the proposals have been given full consideration, nor do the Council appear to have carried out the necessary liaison with other responsible bodies, para 13.197 being an example.
Its North Herts District Plan so liaison responsibility is theirs.
It appears that the North Herts thought process has been:-
Can we put any more houses round Knebworth?
Yes, there are a couple of farmers who want to sell their land.
Its Green Belt.
Oh never mind.
Full stop.
This is certainly true in the case of KB2 which has been touted in several previous consultation documents with North Herts making it clear at that time that it was the landowner's proposal not theirs.

In view of all the above comments I strongly feel that the Inspector should reject all the proposed allocation for housing in sites KB1, KB2 and KB4. If he or she is minded to let a small part of it through it should not be in the Northern half of KB2 because of the drainage issues.

I wish to object to North Herts District Councils housing development plan.

I specifically wish to draw attention to the inclusion of SP2 in the plan for the following reasons.
The plan provides too much housing for a village of the size of Whitwell. The village has increased significantly over the last 10 years with 3 major housing developments. The amount of housing proposed will adversely affect the village to the detriment of the surrounding countryside much loved by villagers, cyclists and walkers alike. The village provides an easy access rural environment for the local towns this will be further eroded if this plan is endorsed.
Of all the surrounding countryside of Whitwell the site of Sp2 seems the worse to pick for housing development. It is visually striking from a number of view points across the hills and up the Valley. it is situate opposite the primary school where additional traffic will cause a problem. The primary school is full and there are no secondary schools within 5 miles. It is hard to see how additional houses are going to help the Village. It has a poor public transport system; narrow roads many without pavements; no shopping or entertainment facilities. The village is likely to turn from rural retreat to suburb as Luton creeps ever closer.
It was disconcerting to see the site added to the plan especially as the housing requirement had gone down and North Herts District council planning committee had already agreed that this was an unsuitable site by turning down a planning application for the site. It seems the fact that the site was outside the village boundary was overcome by just redrawing the boundary. Both the inclusion of the site and redrawing of the boundary was done without any consultation with the village. The council is obliged to consult and for the inclusion of this site into the development plan they have not done so.
The site is known locally to occasionally flood in times of high rainfall and whilst the few houses at risk have taken precautions building on the site is likely to make the flood situation worse. 45 houses will be at risk rather than the present 3 or 4. It is also strange to recommend a site that is known to flood and houses should only be built in such areas under extraordinary cases. We are not in that position here there must be many sites in North Herts not susceptible to flooding.
The village is not against some natural expansion in the right areas but housing of this size rushed into the plan on an inappropriate site does not seem the correct way to go. I therefore object to the plan due to inclusion of the SP2 site in it.

See attached

See attached

See attached

I would like to register my objection in respect of the proposed GA2 plans for a further 600 new homes on precious Green Belt land north of Brooches Wood.

As a resident of Ryders Hill, I appreciate that I myself am living within an area that once upon a time was also woodland area and also realise that there is a need for further housing, however, I cannot understand how it can be deemed necessary to further expand Great Ashby. The area is almost becoming a town within its own right; yet without any of the desperately needed infrastructure. We have one local store (Budgens), no doctors surgery and a primary school (Round Diamond) that was too small for local residents on the day it opened. I live 750 metres as the crow flies from the school and yet have to drive my children to Datchworth primary as I was unsuccessful with my local primary applications. This situation will no doubt replicate itself for secondary school places as the area does not have those facilities either.

Residential parking is insufficient everywhere which will no doubt be the same with any proposed new houses as the builders will be keen to squash as many houses as possible on any land available and disregard the need for decent roads and parking for growing families.

There have been a significant number of houses recently completed on the old Dixons site - surely there are other areas within the town which need to absorb the need for greater housing.

We are desperate to retain some form of countryside; I want my children to grow up enjoying the beautiful woods and fields which we are so lucky to have on our doorstep not in a concrete jungle with no facilities such as leisure, shopping, schooling and surgeries to cope with an influx of 600 new homes.

I strongly object to the Local Plan for North Hertfordshire in relation specifically to Ickleford where I am resident. The points below relate to all the sites:
*Whilst I acknowledge some housing development is necessary, the proposed development for Ickleford is disproportionate to the size of the village and existing population, particularly when compared against other North Hertfordshire settlements.
* Developments that have already been approved in Ickleford do not appear in the plan (Green Man, Ickleford Manor)
* Lack of a coordinated approach - the plans across neighbouring councils appear to have been prepared in isolation, with no coordinated approach between authorities. This would lead potentially to significant over development in this area. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.
* Development on this scale would significantly alter the social and historic fabric of the village, not to mention have a negative impact on the quality of life of residents.
Please find below my specific comments with regards to the individual sites.

Site IC1 (Duncots Close) - 9 Homes
1.Traffic - the local plan and associated modelling fails to include the impact of traffic coming through Ickleford from neighbouring developments across North Herts and also from Central Bedfordshire where a significant amount of building is underway or proposed. There would also be an increase in air pollution which goes against the NHDC policy on air quality. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.
2.Sewerage and Flooding - the village is already unable to cope with the demands on the sewerage network with surface flooding having occurred previously. Many residents have been affected by these problems and Anglian Water are well aware of the issues. Additional housing would only place additional strain on an already stretched network. Building on this site also seems to contradict NHDC's policy of not developing in areas prone to flooding, and to reduce the risk of flooding from new developments. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.
3.Building on Green Belt land- this site is located on Green Belt so development here conflicts with National Planning Policy Framework and NHDC's Strategic Objectives on Green Belt. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.

Site IC2 (Burford Grange) - 40 homes
1.Building on Green Belt land- this site is located on Green Belt so development here conflicts with National Planning Policy Framework and NHDC's Strategic Objectives on Green Belt. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.
2.Traffic - the local plan and associated modeling fails to include the impact of traffic coming through Ickleford from neighbouring developments across North Herts and also from Central Bedfordshire where a significant amount of building is underway or proposed. There would also be an increase in air pollution which goes against the NHDC policy on air quality. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.

Site IC3 (Bedford Road) - 150 Homes
1.Traffic - the local plan and associated modeling fails to include the impact of traffic coming through Ickleford from neighbouring developments across North Herts and also from Central Bedfordshire where a significant amount of building is underway or proposed. There would also be an increase in air pollution which goes against the NHDC policy on air quality. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.
2. Sewerage and Flooding - the village is already unable to cope with the demands on the sewerage network with surface flooding having occurred previously. Many residents have been affected by these problems and Anglian Water are well aware of the issues. Additional housing would only place additional strain on an already stretched network. Building on this site also seems to contradict NHDC's policy of not developing in areas prone to flooding, and to reduce the risk of flooding from new developments. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.
3. Building on Green Belt land- this site is located on Green Belt so development here conflicts with National Planning Policy Framework and NHDC's Strategic Objectives on Green Belt. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.
4. Moving the school - Ickleford School is an integral part of the village and through its close association with St Katharine's Church plays a key role in the social, educational and historic part of the village. Moving the school would go against the NHDC policy of protecting and enhancing the historic character of villages. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.
5. Lack of Proper Consultation - there has been no opportunity to consult on this site as it was not included in the previous version of the Local Plan. No formal consultation has therefore taken place. The Local Plan is therefore "Not Legally Compliant".
Site LS1 (North Ickleford) - 120 homes
1. Traffic - the local plan and associated modelling fails to include the impact of traffic coming through Ickleford from neighbouring developments across North Herts and also from Central Bedfordshire where a significant amount of building is underway or proposed. There would also be an increase in air pollution which goes against the NHDC policy on air quality. The Local Plan is therefore considered "Not Sound" in this regard.
2. Lack of Proper Consultation - there has been no opportunity to consult on this site as it was not included in the previous version of the Local Plan. No formal consultation has therefore taken place. The Local Plan is therefore "Not Legally Compliant".
Having closely examined the plan and in line with my arguments above, I strongly believe that the plan with regards to Ickleford needs to be re-examined and ask that the arguments I have submitted be used in the examination that will be undertaken by the inspector.

See attached

I am very much opposed to the Local Plan 2011-2031 and all developments that suggest the Roundwood site is the future of North Herts. Listed below are my reasons for such objection. I must also highlight the most recent findings of the James Parker, director for PTB Transport Planning and the flawed WBP Ltd TA report. Any amendments to the current layout of the roads Haybluff/Nevis/Mendip will be detrimental and devastating to the residents lives forever.
It is for all the reasons listed within the PTN report dated the 25/11/16 and the below points that I am very much opposed to the Roundwood development of 16/01713/1. The application raises serious concerns for myself, my family my home and surroundings.
Point one. Years ago Croudace have falsely misled an entire estate (Haybluff Drive/Mendip Way/Nevis Road/Finbracks) to purchase their dream homes knowing that their long term plan was to develop the field adjacent to their properties destroying the peace, tranquillity, view and safety that the residents brought into. If the proposal goes ahead our lives will simply never be the same again. I feel like we have been miss-sold our property and question the integrity of Croudace. I suggest the Croudace homeowners would never have brought their plots had they been aware of Croudace's long term plans. This really does feel like a clear case of false advertisement, deception and fraud.
Point two. The proposal will jeopardise the safety of the road users - pedestrians and residents. Haybluff Drive is a dead end road and my family including our pets have grown used to that. We brought our property knowing that traffic would be slight (we are shift workers) and our children (primary school age) would be safe when walking/running in and out from the property. It enables us the sleep we require for our shifts and the peace of mind knowing their safety is catered for with minimal traffic flow.
The roads leading to our property from Great Ashby Way are always congested. There is no amount of extra parking through kerb sides cut outs that would alleviate this. I am amazed at times the parking issues I face getting to and from my home. I often pause as I face the double parking to consider how on earth an emergency vehicle like a fire engine would actually get to my property if required. (I have numerous pictures of double parked vehicles). To even consider access to the new site via Haybluff Drive is preposterous. It is totally flawed and even with adaptations it would not be able to accommodate the traffic issues it already contends with. Nor the new addition of traffic feeding the new site let alone a bus route. The strain would simply be too great for such already congested roads and would exacerbate the parking problems causing unrest and bad feeling amongst the community for the rest of our lives. Not to mention the health implications this would put upon the residents with increased pollution not to mention traffic noise. All of the things we took into consideration when moving out of London to remedy.
The impact this proposal would have on the community is so negative by signing up it would cause civil unrest in Haybluff Drive/Nevis Road /Mendip Way and the surrounding area forever. Parking issues/anti-social behaviour and potential criminal damage are expected as the residents will have to result in managing the parking issues themselves. The impact this would then put on an already stretched Police Force would simply be unmanageable. Let alone the friction it would cause on a peaceful and harmonious estate it simply is unimaginable.
The disruption the construction traffic will cause is not even worth thinking about - an absolute nightmare. The roads would not be able to cope with the demands the construction traffic would impose nor the reduction in safety for our children. The constant noise from the site will impact on our sanity. Devastating. This will disrupting the lives of the residents for years. I cannot emphasise the bad feeling that this change will result in. Both towards the Council for not listening to its resident whom it has a duty of care to and obviously toward Candace who it trusted. There are many resident unable to make their feelings known or even voice them on an inadequate setting a such as this. Many are not computer literate and many too proud to be able to tell you their feelings on a public forum regarding the proposal and the stress and it is causing.
Point three. The site proposed is within the green belt. Classed as such to stop developments exactly like this one. Destroying the homes of many forms of trees shrub and wildlife in addition to significantly impacting on the visual aspect of the area. The essential characteristics of the views from all the roads from Great Ashby Way through to Haybluff Drive is its openness. Its sense of permanence and countryside will be lost forever. The homeowners bought into this upon their initial purchase. How will they be compensated for such a loss? How will you compensate or quantify the future wildlife and generations in the continued destruction of the Green belt for the purposes of unnecessary development. It is reckless and should be totally discouraged. There are many other areas within Hertfordshire that should be considered and whose residents would welcome a development that are not in Green Belt land why sign up to destroy this land that is sacred to us? We are now out of the EU and the demand for housing has expeditiously reduced. We moved to Haybluff to get away from London we do not want another London in a sleepy semi-rural Hertfordshire estate. My family take a keen interest in wildlife and on many occasions I have seen and witnessed many wonderful and sometimes and endangered species cross into Bray Drive and surrounding areas including the development over the years. This has included Badgers, foxes, hares, moles, hedgehogs, various mice, various deer, frogs, toads, newts, grass snakes, lizards and even bats. We can't continue to destroy their habitats. If the development continues a crime report will undoubtedly be recorded in regards to this.
Point four. The infrastructure requirements for the proposal need to be considered - facilities such as a school; doctor's surgery and a pharmacy must be incorporated. The existing school in Great Ashby is already oversubscribed with the Head teacher saying that the next intake will be only those with siblings and within 200 metres of it. The proposal would need to be self-sufficient and have these facilities incorporated into it. Those in Great Ashby simply could not cope with additional demands. The local GPs are already over-subscribed and obtaining an appointment comes with ludicrous waiting times. These items and a re-evaluation to the access points in and out of the proposal site need to be re-thought before it could even be considered. Access to and from the A1M would need to be included to prevent the major disruption it would bring to Haybluff Drive through to Great Ashby Way and the already exhausted Calder Way. The site should not be linked to the existing estate. The A1M even with its recent alterations would also need to be reconsidered. Junction 7 through to 8 is always at a standstill during peak times. The proposal will only add to this already commuting nightmare. In regards to schools it appears that the parents of the current children in place have not been told that there is a likelihood that their younger children may now not be allowed to attend the same school as their older siblings due to the over subscription. My partner and I are planning for our third child and would not be able to cope with two school runs. I would suggest every member of the school should be included and consulted in this proposal in fairness as it will affect them greatly. This would run into thousands of additional objections.
Point five. The planning application has been done under handed with little notice and a faulty electronic registering system. Giving residents with objections no time to do so on a faulty software system. Constant logging in and server issues. Let alone the initial letter was sent out on the 13/7/16 giving only 21 days to respond. Nor any movement on this deadline due to the technical issues. The residents have literally been left to fend for themselves against a multi-million pound development company. Where is the support of NHDC during such a crucial time? Albeit through a faulty consultation database. I would suggest a civil court will side strongly with the residents in regards to this.
Point six. Is the adverse effect the development will have on the residential amenity of the neighbours. The level of traffic noise that passes my front door is minimal (dead end road/Haybluff Drive. The proposal indicates our road to be one of the two main access points into to the development. To go from one extreme to the other is too significant, too life changing this change simply cannot go ahead. We never signed up for this drastic vision. We never would. I would never have invested hundreds of thousands of pounds of my hard earned money to buy a property that is surrounded by traffic leading to an additional estate with a parking nightmare upon my return from my daily commute. It appears every single resident of the existing estate and Great Ashby is against this proposal. Surely this must raise alarm bells in the planning authority? Where is the democracy here?
NHDC must support the community and listen to its community and oppose this proposal. The disruption the proposal will cause to our daily lives is unimaginable and words can't describe how stress inducing. The thought of trying to get on and off of our driveway will be a daily challenge - reversing onto a main road that would be so congested with parked cars whilst negotiating the new passing heavy traffic and the pollution filled buses. This development simply cannot go ahead. It would adversely affect highway safety and the convenience of existing road users and pedestrians. We keep our windows open due to our children's health and the introduction of constant traffic will force us to cease doing this. It is absolutely awful to think of how much pain Croudace could potential cause us. We did not sign up to this, our property is our future, the future for our children and we need to safeguard this. I feel helpless to this company and need NHDC to support its residents and fight back against this unrealistic vision.
Point seven. Great Ashby is already over-developed of Great Ashby to add the proposal on to this through the eradication of Green Belt land is unacceptable and unneccesary especially after the EU exit. In fact there could easily be empty houses or drastically reduced plots not selling which will causing a knock on effect to the community and wealth of the area. The open aspect of the Green Belt land must remain. We cannot continue to develop on an already over-subscribed area. The site suggested is a flood plain - this will force water into the existing estate causing devastating effects. Sewerage and items such like will need to be considered. It does amaze me when we cannot even get BT infinity to our property yet NHDC will consider such a proposal and think it would go un-noticed and without a protests and compensation claims. NHDC need to develop their existing estates - rebuilding the playgrounds that have fallen into disrepair and nurture the grass, hedges and foliage. Improve the parking facilities and benefit the residents that contribute to its council tax rather than taking what enjoyment they have. We would like to say we would move immediately if this proposal went ahead but having invested in a 10 year fixed rate mortgage we would have massive penalty costs that would affect us for the rest of our lives.
Point eight. The loss of existing views from my and the neighbouring properties which would adversely affect the residential amenity of the neighbouring owners. From looking at the proposals where my family currently look out into a beautiful field and watch the sunrise or sun set I will now look at a roundabout. Where my family look out of their window and see dense trees I will now see a bus.
Please imagine for a second the noise and pollution of thousands of vehicles of various sizes slowing down from speed outside my house as they use the proposed roundabout to then accelerating at speed along my road. Does anyone realise the plumes of smoke that churns outs in these circumstances? Harmful smoke that my family and children will have no option but to breathe all day every day and night. Exactly why many residents left London for Hertfordshire was due to the evidenced high quantity of Carbon emissions. The proposals would increase this in the road to a ridicules level in comparison. The houses are not set back like as in Great Ashby Way. As mentioned previously both my partner and many people in the street work shifts so we sleep during the day. In the summer we need the windows open. We will not be allowed to do this under the proposals. It will be devastating in both pollution and noise.
Point nine. The reduction in pavement and grass verges in the proposal with have a detrimental effect on dog walkers, wheelchair users and those with children in buggies and the such like. Thus reducing the safety for pedestrians. Again you cannot sell a plot to residents here and then move the goalposts digging up the front of their house because it suits their new agenda and simply disrespect the old customers. It is not moral nor ethical and it will be devastating to their reputation as a company. The Great Ashby community will come together to protect its future and forewarn future Croudace customers from making the same mistakes.
Point ten. Headlines already being shouted out against NHDC and Coudace via FACEBOOK and other media.
"Buy a dream home from Croudace and in 10 years you could have a toxic bus route running through what was the front of your house"
"Croudace in court for breach of contract and false advertising"
"HCMC in bed with Coudace"
"New 'Rat run' destroying community spirit in Great Ashby"
"Hertfordshire's elected leaders shamed for allowing reckless development to go ahead against wishes of the community.
"Croudace reputation in ruins, value plummets amid scandal"
"Child killed in RTC after HCMC warned over opening dead end road"
NHDC please review this proposal and object for all the reasons listed. It would be the right choice to make for the good of Great Ashby.

My husband and I are most alarmed by the N.Herts District's proposed plans for the Codicote area for the following reasons:-

1. Traffic. Our roads are already congested and dangerous and will become even more so.

2. Sustainability. Codicote shows the lowest level of sustainable travel of all the preferred housing development areas in the district.

3. Green Belt. These plans go against the Government's aim to prevent urban sprawl.

4. Housing Numbers. The proposed number of new homes represents an increase of circa 36% and this is unsustainable and unjustified.

5. Schooling issues and health care have not been thought-through. Neither would be able to cope with all the extra families.

See attachment

See attachment

See attached

See attachment

We are writing about those aspects of the NHDC Local Plan relating to the village of Codicote. We have two broad objections to the plan: the first is the loss of green belt and the second is the failure to provide the necessary improvements to infrastructure that the proposed increase in housing will require. We are also concerned about affordability of new homes.

Green Belt
At the inception of the plan the defined settlement boundary of Codicote was extended to include three parcels of green belt land. Paragraph 4.53 of the plan indicates that this will be done to "enable development to meet locally identified needs". However, as the deadline for completion drew close a fourth parcel of green belt land (CD5) was added which enabled the projected number of houses to be almost doubled to 315. This suggests a pragmatic approach on the part of the council taking up land that was offered rather than considering local needs (unless, of course, the original estimate of local needs was too low by a factor of two). Our contention is that the driving force lies with the London housing market where government has failed to curb speculative development of expensive luxury flats thereby forcing Londoners to move out of town. National newspapers have identified the Stevenage area as a desirable commuter location (see for example the Daily Telegraph Financial Section 9 October 2015 and 8 January 2016). The problem for our community is that once this green belt land has been released for development it is gone - for ever. Further, area CD1 is adjacent to a Local Wildlife site. It is important for planners to appreciate that wildlife has no understanding of human boundaries: if animals are disturbed they will leave, never to return. Our forebears understood these things which is why they created the green belt policy. We cannot dilute it when it becomes inconvenient.

Affordability
Policy SP8 promises that 33 - 40% of houses built will be affordable for local needs. So far in Codicote this has not happened. In the last two years nine houses have been erected along St. Albans Road to the north east of our house where previously there were three. Construction of a tenth has started in the last few weeks. All these houses have been large, high-specification family homes with prices to match. As far as we are aware no affordable homes have been built anywhere in the village during the same time period. It is clear that some mechanism needs to be put in place to ensure that the promise of affordable homes is kept.

Infrastructure
We are concerned about the impact on the infrastructure that a 25% increase in the housing stock of Codicote will have. This concern is shared by our neighbours who have raised the issue of the local school. We are pleased to note that the council has listened to this objection and has included an extension of the school in the plan.

However, there is still an issue with medical facilities: the nearest doctor's surgery is at Welwyn. This is already overloaded to the extent that appointments have to be made 2 - 3 weeks in advance. A 25% increase in the number of patients is not going to improve matters. It is therefore essential that some form of medical amenity be provided as part of the plan.

Finally there is the question of transport. The plan indicates a trend towards out-commuting (paragraph 4.26). Since the plan for Codicote is focussed entirely on housing and makes no mention of employment we can assume that all the new inhabitants will need to travel elsewhere to work daily. The assertion in paragraph 13.81 that modelling indicates no need to enhance transport is frankly unbelievable. The B656 is already overloaded at peak times. Relative to its size the lane to Wheathamstead is busy all day; with the amount of industrial traffic this now carries it is positively dangerous for children, adult pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.

I strongly object to the outline North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011- 2031especially 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:

1.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).

2. There are 205 dwellings in Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green and Tea Green currently. An additional 2,100 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.

3. 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.

4. There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure:

a. 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 5,000+ 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 ASOS suffer equally.

b. The traffic Survey carried out 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.

c. 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.

d. 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 Ml via Lilley Bottom and Lilley, and seek to access Hitchin/Stevenage through Offley.

5. 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.

6. 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?

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

8. Teeming wildlife, owls, bats, deer, foxes, etc., will be displaced. Wildlife corridors are no substitute.

9. By the councils own environmental study of 2007 it stated that the water table was insufficient to sustain a large scale development and that there is a high risk of subsidence. Has this been taken into consideration?

10. The environmental effects of the carbon emissions of 5,000+ additional vehicles on the roads will be detrimental to our children and grandchildren's health and wellbeing with the accompanying increase of the incidence of childhood asthma and respiratory problems and diseases such whooping cough.

I urge the council to strongly think again and exclude this section from their proposed plan.

See attached

See attached

See attachment

See attached

See attachments