Policy SP8: Housing

See attachment

See attached

See attachment

Now that NHDC has decided that it does not intend to develop an equitable Local Plan across North Herts and that Baldock will take a disproportionate number of the new housing which will result in the town being doubled in size, there are a number of questions and considerations that arise with such a large increase which need to be carefully considered and answered before the development commences.

Firstly and most importantly the proposed road network for Baldock is weak and undefined and will be totally inadequate for the number of new houses proposed. The bottle-neck problems today are well known particularly at the Whitehorse Road / Royston Road crossroads and also on the A1 south around Stevenage. A new road connecting the A507 London Road to the A505 Baldock bypass including a new bridge across the railway and some tinkering around the station area will not provide the road infrastructure that will be required from three thousand new homes and as a consequence in excess of four thousand additional vehicles.

Has anyone associated with the Local Plan considered where these new homeowners might work and how will they travel to their work and what the impact will be on roads in and around Baldock. It is most likely that people will work either south or west of Baldock given the limited employment opportunities to the east or north. There are no provisions in the Local Plan to address these requirements, which render it unsatisfactory and ineffective as it stands. These needs must be addressed as a matter of priority if this Local Plan is seriously to be pursued.

The proposed development of 2,800 new homes to the north of Baldock is effectively the development of a 'new town' adjacent to the oldest market town in North Herts and therefore, the planning must be considerably more robust and effective than has been identified in the Local Plan. Areas of weakness relate to road infrastructure, water and sewerage provision, employment provision, infrastructure and its funding, greenspaces and landscaping of the 'new town'.

Furthermore what provisions have been made for the retention of the community based culture that currently exists in Baldock?............the answer....... none whatsoever.

My request is for the Local Plan to be withdrawn in order that all or at least some of these issues are adequately addressed.

See attachment

I would like to register my formal objection to the proposed excessive new homes planned for Barkway.

Barkway is a small and friendly village with only a first school, a church, pub, garage and hairdressers in terms of amenities.

The proposition of the size of the village increasing by nearly 50% saddens me. Barkway is a small village. These are becoming few and far between and should be preserved as part a historic British way of life rather than turning our lovely village into just another small town.

In addition I feel that Barkway and surrounding countryside is one of the prettiest parts of the North Herts and inevitably new housing estates will damage this environment.

My final comment is on road use. I live on the main road with my husband and two young children. Cars go fast but it is not busy. If these new houses are built our access up the footpath to the centre of our village would be dangerous. Additionally the driving route to Royston would be far busier (no work opportunities in Barkway so I assume the new occupants would largely be commuting out of the village for work) and the road is not safe for more cars.

This village extension should not go ahead. I appreciate new houses should be built but these should be done proportionally to the pre existing population and not all crammed in to one end of a small village. To me it makes sense to build on areas that are not outstandingly beautiful.

Letchworth Garden City is the World' s First Garden City and is promoted worldwide for it's planning. However, historical assets are being threatened, backed only by a small hand full of officials despite an outcry from residents of Letchworth (those who are aware of this proposed housing as there has been ineffective communication).
The site is inappropriate as being too far from town. Our garden city principles state that amenities should be within reasonable walking distance.
I object to building on our green belt as our population capacity is also a historical asset. Our population is specified at 32,000 by being the World's First Garden City.
The importance of our green belt is paramount and it's preservation was stipulated by Parliament in 1993.
I also object because the Local Plan also exceeds hugely our Local Needs, and by doing so, looks at green belt to fulfil. Any development in these circumstances should be restricted - according to National Framework guidance.

Green Belt Policy
NHDC have failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances to build on green belt, justified with unconvincing figures. Half of the housing proposed in Letchworth is Green belt - and this percentage only increases through the Local Plan sites.
In October 2014, the dept. of communities and Local government stated that" drawing on protections in the National Planning Policy Framework to safeguard their local area against urban sprawl, and protect the green lungs around towns and cities".
LG1 is an proposed housing estate of 900 homes attached to a current housing estate at the north of our town is urban sprawl therefore I object.

This site is within 60 metres of Bedfordshire border and Stotfold continues to grow and recently has began to expand into the land only one field away from this development.
(see photo expansion of Stotfold and view from edge of LG1 as attached)

Biodiversity
This is one of the most biodiverse in the county and is a haven for many red listed wildlife and flora. I understand that the hedges date back 400 years or more.
This land has been given grants to created stewardships for nature to flourish and this has led to a haven for wildlife. This is a long list of wildlife - many red species. Also the Letchworth Gravels should also be recognised dating back 500,000 years ago.
In turn, this land is priceless for recreation. The calling for a Nature and Wellbeing Act continues. The land north of Letchworth is exactly what this Act would be protecting. The sense of quiet and calm is very strong for walkers, runners and cyclist throughout the year. NHDC's Biodiversity Action Plan 2005 should continue to protect this heavily rich land.

Infrastructure
I object because the current infrastructure is not flexible to adapt to accommodate further traffic.
North of Letchworth suffers terribly with traffic. Our roads are often grid lock at peak times and are dangerous. Routes for the housing run past schools. Traffic is backed from Green Lane/Norton Road junction to Glebe Road every day, Norton Way North is often backed up from the Grange junction to Icknield Way, Cowslip Hill is a rat run and is severely congested also due to commuter parking. Road parking in our town is becoming increasing more dangerous due to amount. There is little commuter parking and so far, no plans have transpired to facilitate the current commuter parking, let alone anymore. Taking away grass verges and tree lined road is not an option due to world-wide recognition for town planning.
Traffic filters to and from the A1M from junction 9 and 10. There is currently no signage at junction 10 to indicate Letchworth However, the traffic from A507 towards Letchworth is at capacity -due to having to go through the village of Norton. Any further excessive housing would increase this to dangerous levels and again there is little flexibility to change road configuration. Any traffic from junction 9 blocks the roads currently. Pixmore Road is the main access road and has always been dangerous.
(see photos attached of Norton Road at peak times).

Alternative sites

I suggest that the need for housing figures are looked at again. This Local Plan seems heavily weighted on green belt land rather than accessing brownfield sites, as stipulated by the National Planning Policy and therefore unsound.
I understand that North Herts population is projected, even pre- Brexit to increase 0.34% per year for 20 years. The Local Plan has been exaggerated by NHDC, and considering 4,340 have already been built/approved, the figures here also need looking at.

I also object because NHD do not seem to have taken into consideration empty dwellings. At a public council meeting, Mr Levett didn't have any figures available for this. The figures are that in October 2013, there were 1,249 empty dwelling in North Herts (422 long term).

I object also as NHDC have disregarded true brownfield figures.
CPRE document 'From Wasted Space to Living Spaces. (Nov 2014) the figure for North Herts is listed as having brownfield land suitable for 11,000 homes.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/national-land-use-database-of-previously-developed-land-nlud-pdl

The removal of land from the green belt for strategic development at the locations referred to in Policies SP8 and SP3 is in direct contradiction of the Governments guidance. The planning guidance makes clear that, once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. SP3 & SP8 would fail the fundamental aim of green belt policy to prevent urban sprawl, neighbouring towns from merging into one another, safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, preserve the setting of an historic town and restrict the regeneration of derelict and urban land within North Hertfordshire. NPPF para 14 & 83.

Please let me be counted as I wish to change the Local Plan and participate in the Examination as I strongly object to the NHDC Local Plan 2011-2031.
First and foremost, the infrastructure and transportation networks are inadequately addressed in the parts of the plan relating sites East of Luton, to meet Luton's Unmet Housing Need East of Luton. The Transport Assessments were not robust and the data was inadequate and inaccurate; they did not include impacts of all new developments in the vicinity and they were not carried out for long enough. Some studies from Luton Borough Council assumed roads that did not even exist.
Currently, traffic congestion in Wigmore is already close to unacceptable levels; both LBC and NHDC have noted concerns over lack of necessary infrastructure and inadequate road networks due to the already existent congestion.
I also object that there is no justifiable need to declassify Land East of Luton from the Green Belt. There are many viable alternatives, so the Local Plan is not in accordance with the National Framework Planning Policy since it is not "absolutely necessary." I wish to change this plan. I want to participate in the Examination.
Building 2,105 upwards houses will lead to unacceptable problematic congestion consequences for this area, especially in the light of the airport's vast expansion which planned simultaneously for this side of town. This will impact all of Luton; Wigmore, Stopsley, Eaton Green, and even Round Green, Stockingstone Road, and even the over-stretched Luton and Dunstable Hospital!
Air quality and pollution has not been assessed in the residential areas around the airport and there has been no mitigating solutions to the air and noise pollution that will be generated from the extra cars, or the airport expansion in this area.
Wigmore currently consists of about 4,500 houses, so this proposal is an unacceptably disproportionate level of expansion - nearly 50%.

Cockernhoe Village will no longer even exist. It would destroy an entire rural community and displace a village. It would change the character of the area to an unacceptable degree. If you consider that Cockernhoe is 50 houses, the expansion threat is a huge 4,200%, which is unacceptable and totally disproportionate.
Logic would dictate that all other infrastructure must also be matched by an expansion of 50 per cent too - so half of every public service available in Wigmore, ranging from shops and retail outlets, (we have one overstretched supermarket as it is), car parks, secondary and primary schools, petrol stations, policing services, fire services, health services, dental services must all be also expanded to that same degree. Where will the money for all this come from as the developers won't be putting these services in place.
The unmet housing need figure also shows inaccuracies. During Executive Meetings LBC stated the need for a collaboration between neighbouring councils to commission another Strategic Housing Management Assessment to re-examine once more the Unmet Housing Need figure assumptions, due to their estimated nature but far-reaching consequences and drastic impact upon the area. I understand there are more appropriate brown fill sites that can be built upon that would be better suited than stripping away green belt land.

Infrastructure and transportation networks are inadequately addressed in the parts of the plan relating sites East of Luton, to meet Luton's Unmet Housing Need East of Luton. I object that there is no justifiable need to declassify Land East of Luton from the Green Belt. There are many viable alternatives, so the Local Plan is not in accordance with the National Framework Planning Policy since it is not "absolutely necessary." I wish to change this plan. I want to participate in the Examination.

This will impact all of Luton; Wigmore, Stopsley, Eaton Green, and even Round Green, Stockingstone Road, and even the over-stretched Luton and Dunstable Hospital!

Building 2,105 upwards houses will lead to unacceptable problematic congestion consequences for this area, especially in the light of the airport's vast expansion which planned simultaneously for this side of town. Air quality and pollution has not be assessed in the residential areas around the airport.

The Transport Assessments were not robust. The their data was inadequate and inaccurate; they did not include impacts of all new developments in the vicinity, they were not carried out for long enough, and some studies from Luton Borough Council assumed roads that did not even exist. Traffic congestion in Wigmore is unacceptable levels.

Both LBC and NHDC have noted concerns over lack of necessary infrastructure and inadequate road networks due to the already existent congestion.

The Plan is not deliverable if the basic required infrastructure and transportation access has not been delivered also.

If you consider that Cockernhoe is 50 houses, the expansion threat is a huge 4,200 per cent!! This is disproportionate.

Wigmore currently consists of about 4,500 houses, so this proposal is an unacceptably disproportionate level of expansion on that side too. 2105 houses is like taking half the size of the entire Wigmore Area, and sticking it onto the side all over again.

Therefore logic would dictate that all other infrastructure must also be matched by an expansion of 50 per cent too - so half of every public service available in Wigmore; ranging from shops and retail outlets, car parks, secondary and primary schools, petrol stations, policing services, fire services, health services, dental services must all be also expanded to that same degree. Where will the money for all this come from? The developers will not be paying for any of it.

Cockernhoe Village will no longer even exist. It would destroy an entire rural community and displace a village. It would change the character of the area to an unacceptable degree.

There have been no mitigating solutions to the air and noise pollution that will be generated from the extra cars, or the airport expansion in this area.

The unmet housing need figure also shows inaccuracies. During Executive Meetings LBC stated the need for a collaboration between neighbouring councils to commission another Strategic Housing Management Assessment to re-examine once more the Unmet Housing Need figure assumptions, due to their estimated nature but far-reaching consequences and drastic impact upon the area. Luton's unmet housing need figure is based on migration statistics. The Plan does not consider how Brexit will affect these either.

So consider this written address that I wish to change the Local Plan and participate in the Examination.

I strongly object to the NHDC Local Plan 2011-2031.

Infrastructure and transportation networks are inadequately addressed in the parts of the plan relating sites East of Luton, to meet Luton's Unmet Housing Need East of Luton. I object that there is no justifiable need to declassify Land East of Luton from the Green Belt. There are many viable alternatives, so the Local Plan is not in accordance with the National Framework Planning Policy since it is not "absolutely necessary." I wish to change this plan. I want to participate in the Examination.

This will impact all of Luton; Wigmore, Stopsley, Eaton Green, and even Round Green, Stockingstone Road, and even the over-stretched Luton and Dunstable Hospital!

Building 2,105 upwards houses will lead to unacceptable problematic congestion consequences for this area, especially in the light of the airport's vast expansion which planned simultaneously for this side of town. Air quality and pollution has not be assessed in the residential areas around the airport.

The Transport Assessments were not robust. The their data was inadequate and inaccurate; they did not include impacts of all new developments in the vicinity, they were not carried out for long enough, and some studies from Luton Borough Council assumed roads that did not even exist. Traffic congestion in Wigmore is unacceptable levels.

Both LBC and NHDC have noted concerns over lack of necessary infrastructure and inadequate road networks due to the already existent congestion.

The Plan is not deliverable if the basic required infrastructure and transportation access has not been delivered also.

If you consider that Cockernhoe is 50 houses, the expansion threat is a huge 4,200 per cent!! This is disproportionate.

Wigmore currently consists of about 4,500 houses, so this proposal is an unacceptably disproportionate level of expansion on that side too. 2105 houses is like taking half the size of the entire Wigmore Area, and sticking it onto the side all over again.

Therefore logic would dictate that all other infrastructure must also be matched by an expansion of 50 per cent too - so half of every public service available in Wigmore; ranging from shops and retail outlets, car parks, secondary and primary schools, petrol stations, policing services, fire services, health services, dental services must all be also expanded to that same degree. Where will the money for all this come from? The developers will not be paying for any of it.

Cockernhoe Village will no longer even exist. It would destroy an entire rural community and displace a village. It would change the character of the area to an unacceptable degree.

There have been no mitigating solutions to the air and noise pollution that will be generated from the extra cars, or the airport expansion in this area.

The unmet housing need figure also shows inaccuracies. During Executive Meetings LBC stated the need for a collaboration between neighbouring councils to commission another Strategic Housing Management Assessment to re-examine once more the Unmet Housing Need figure assumptions, due to their estimated nature but far-reaching consequences and drastic impact upon the area. Luton's unmet housing need figure is based on migration statistics. The Plan does not consider how Brexit will affect these either.

So consider this written address that I wish to change the Local Plan and participate in the Examination.

I want to participate in the Examination Stages for NHDC Local Plan 2011-2030 and wish to change parts of the Plan.

I strongly object to the NHDC Local Plan 2011-2031.

Infrastructure and transportation networks are inadequately addressed in the parts of the plan relating sites East of Luton, to meet Luton's Unmet Housing Need East of Luton. I object that there is no justifiable need to declassify Land East of Luton from the Green Belt. There are many viable alternatives, so the Local Plan is not in accordance with the National Framework Planning Policy since it is not "absolutely necessary." I wish to change this plan. I want to participate in the Examination.

This will impact all of Luton; Wigmore, Stopsley, Eaton Green, and even Round Green, Stockingstone Road, and even the over-stretched Luton and Dunstable Hospital!

Building 2,105 upwards houses will lead to unacceptable problematic congestion consequences for this area, especially in the light of the airport's vast expansion which planned simultaneously for this side of town. Air quality and pollution has not be assessed in the residential areas around the airport.

The Transport Assessments were not robust. The their data was inadequate and inaccurate; they did not include impacts of all new developments in the vicinity, they were not carried out for long enough, and some studies from Luton Borough Council assumed roads that did not even exist. Traffic congestion in Wigmore is unacceptable levels.

Both LBC and NHDC have noted concerns over lack of necessary infrastructure and inadequate road networks due to the already existent congestion.

The Plan is not deliverable if the basic required infrastructure and transportation access has not been delivered also.

If you consider that Cockernhoe is 50 houses, the expansion threat is a huge 4,200 per cent!! This is disproportionate.

Wigmore currently consists of about 4,500 houses, so this proposal is an unacceptably disproportionate level of expansion on that side too. 2105 houses is like taking half the size of the entire Wigmore Area, and sticking it onto the side all over again.

Therefore logic would dictate that all other infrastructure must also be matched by an expansion of 50 per cent too - so half of every public service available in Wigmore; ranging from shops and retail outlets, car parks, secondary and primary schools, petrol stations, policing services, fire services, health services, dental services must all be also expanded to that same degree. Where will the money for all this come from? The developers will not be paying for any of it.

Cockernhoe Village will no longer even exist. It would destroy an entire rural community and displace a village. It would change the character of the area to an unacceptable degree.

There have been no mitigating solutions to the air and noise pollution that will be generated from the extra cars, or the airport expansion in this area.

The unmet housing need figure also shows inaccuracies. During Executive Meetings LBC stated the need for a collaboration between neighbouring councils to commission another Strategic Housing Management Assessment to re-examine once more the Unmet Housing Need figure assumptions, due to their estimated nature but far-reaching consequences and drastic impact upon the area. Luton's unmet housing need figure is based on migration statistics. The Plan does not consider how Brexit will affect these either.

So consider this written address that I wish to change the Local Plan and participate in the Examination.

I am writing to strongly object to the NHDC Local Plan 2011-2031.

Infrastructure and transportation networks are inadequately addressed in the parts of the plan relating sites East of Luton, to meet Luton's Unmet Housing Need East of Luton. I object that there is no justifiable need to declassify Land East of Luton from the Green Belt. There are many viable alternatives, so the Local Plan is not in accordance with the National Framework Planning Policy since it is not "absolutely necessary." I wish to change this plan. I want to participate in the Examination.

This will greatly impact on all of Luton; Wigmore, Stopsley, Eaton Green, and even Round Green, Stockingstone Road, and even the over-stretched Luton and Dunstable Hospital! I believe it will also greatly impact on traffic through to Hitchin and beyond, which is already vastly congested at peak periods.

Building 2,105 upwards houses will lead to unacceptable problematic congestion consequences for this area, especially in the light of the airport's vast expansion which planned simultaneously for this side of town. Air quality and pollution has not be assessed in the residential areas around the airport.

The Transport Assessments were not robust. Their data was inadequate and inaccurate; they did not include impacts of all new developments in the vicinity, they were not carried out for long enough, and some studies from Luton Borough Council assumed roads that did not even exist. Traffic congestion in Wigmore is unacceptable levels.

Both LBC and NHDC have noted concerns over lack of necessary infrastructure and inadequate road networks due to the already existent congestion.

The Plan is not deliverable if the basic required infrastructure and transportation access has not been delivered also.

If you consider that Cockernhoe is 50 houses, the expansion threat is a huge 4,200 per cent!! This is disproportionate.

Wigmore currently consists of about 4,500 houses, so this proposal is an unacceptably disproportionate level of expansion on that side too. 2105 houses is like taking half the size of the entire Wigmore Area, and sticking it onto the side all over again.

Therefore logic would dictate that all other infrastructure must also be matched by an expansion of 50 per cent too - so half of every public service available in Wigmore; ranging from shops and retail outlets, car parks, secondary and primary schools, petrol stations, policing services, fire services, health services, dental services must all be also expanded to that same degree. Where will the money for all this come from? The developers will not be paying for any of it.

Cockernhoe Village will no longer even exist. It would destroy an entire rural community and displace a village. It would change the character of the area to an unacceptable degree.

There have been no mitigating solutions to the air and noise pollution that will be generated from the extra cars, or the airport expansion in this area.

The unmet housing need figure also shows inaccuracies. During Executive Meetings LBC stated the need for a collaboration between neighbouring councils to commission another Strategic Housing Management Assessment to re-examine once more the Unmet Housing Need figure assumptions, due to their estimated nature but far-reaching consequences and drastic impact upon the area. Luton's unmet housing need figure is based on migration statistics. The Plan does not consider how Brexit will affect these either.

So consider this written address that I wish to change the Local Plan and participate in the Examination.

Please let me be counted as I wish to change the Local Plan and participate in the Examination as I strongly object to the NHDC Local Plan 2011-2031.
First and foremost, the infrastructure and transportation networks are inadequately addressed in the parts of the plan relating sites East of Luton, to meet Luton's Unmet Housing Need East of Luton. The Transport Assessments were not robust and the data was inadequate and inaccurate; they did not include impacts of all new developments in the vicinity and they were not carried out for long enough. Some studies from Luton Borough Council assumed roads that did not even exist.
Currently, traffic congestion in Wigmore is already close to unacceptable levels; both LBC and NHDC have noted concerns over lack of necessary infrastructure and inadequate road networks due to the already existent congestion.
I also object that there is no justifiable need to declassify Land East of Luton from the Green Belt. There are many viable alternatives, so the Local Plan is not in accordance with the National Framework Planning Policy since it is not "absolutely necessary." I wish to change this plan. I want to participate in the Examination.
Building 2,105 upwards houses will lead to unacceptable problematic congestion consequences for this area, especially in the light of the airport's vast expansion which planned simultaneously for this side of town. This will impact all of Luton; Wigmore, Stopsley, Eaton Green, and even Round Green, Stockingstone Road, and even the over-stretched Luton and Dunstable Hospital!
Air quality and pollution has not been assessed in the residential areas around the airport and there has been no mitigating solutions to the air and noise pollution that will be generated from the extra cars, or the airport expansion in this area.
Wigmore currently consists of about 4,500 houses, so this proposal is an unacceptably disproportionate level of expansion - nearly 50%.

Cockernhoe Village will no longer even exist. It would destroy an entire rural community and displace a village. It would change the character of the area to an unacceptable degree. If you consider that Cockernhoe is 50 houses, the expansion threat is a huge 4,200%, which is unacceptable and totally disproportionate.
Logic would dictate that all other infrastructure must also be matched by an expansion of 50 per cent too - so half of every public service available in Wigmore, ranging from shops and retail outlets, (we have one overstretched supermarket as it is), car parks, secondary and primary schools, petrol stations, policing services, fire services, health services, dental services must all be also expanded to that same degree. Where will the money for all this come from as the developers won't be putting these services in place.
The unmet housing need figure also shows inaccuracies. During Executive Meetings LBC stated the need for a collaboration between neighbouring councils to commission another Strategic Housing Management Assessment to re-examine once more the Unmet Housing Need figure assumptions, due to their estimated nature but far-reaching consequences and drastic impact upon the area. I understand there are more appropriate brown fill sites that can be built upon that would be better suited than stripping away green belt land.

Please let me be counted as I wish to change the Local Plan and participate in the Examination as I strongly object to the NHDC Local Plan 2011-2031.

We are at Saturation point, please stop building in North Herts NOW!
We rely on nature, but we are making it impossible for wildlife to survive. Bees are essential to us having food, but they need space to live, we are killing their habitat, their food source and them!

First and foremost, the infrastructure and transportation networks are inadequately addressed in the parts of the plan relating sites East of Luton, to meet Luton's Unmet Housing Need East of Luton. The Transport Assessments were not robust and the data was inadequate and inaccurate; they did not include impacts of all new developments in the vicinity and they were not carried out for long enough. Some studies from Luton Borough Council assumed roads that did not even exist.
Currently, traffic congestion in Wigmore is already close to unacceptable levels; both LBC and NHDC have noted concerns over lack of necessary infrastructure and inadequate road networks due to the already existent congestion.
I also object that there is no justifiable need to declassify Land East of Luton from the Green Belt. There are many viable alternatives, so the Local Plan is not in accordance with the National Framework Planning Policy since it is not "absolutely necessary." I wish to change this plan. I want to participate in the Examination.
Building 2,105 upwards houses will lead to unacceptable problematic congestion consequences for this area, especially in the light of the airport's vast expansion which planned simultaneously for this side of town. This will impact all of Luton; Wigmore, Stopsley, Eaton Green, and even Round Green, Stockingstone Road, and even the over-stretched Luton and Dunstable Hospital!
Air quality and pollution has not been assessed in the residential areas around the airport and there has been no mitigating solutions to the air and noise pollution that will be generated from the extra cars, or the airport expansion in this area.
Wigmore currently consists of about 4,500 houses, so this proposal is an unacceptably disproportionate level of expansion - nearly 50%.

Cockernhoe Village will no longer even exist. It would destroy an entire rural community and displace a village. It would change the character of the area to an unacceptable degree. If you consider that Cockernhoe is 50 houses, the expansion threat is a huge 4,200%, which is unacceptable and totally disproportionate.
Logic would dictate that all other infrastructure must also be matched by an expansion of 50 per cent too - so half of every public service available in Wigmore, ranging from shops and retail outlets, (we have one overstretched supermarket as it is), car parks, secondary and primary schools, petrol stations, policing services, fire services, health services, dental services must all be also expanded to that same degree. Where will the money for all this come from as the developers won't be putting these services in place.
The unmet housing need figure also shows inaccuracies. During Executive Meetings LBC stated the need for a collaboration between neighbouring councils to commission another Strategic Housing Management Assessment to re-examine once more the Unmet Housing Need figure assumptions, due to their estimated nature but far-reaching consequences and drastic impact upon the area. I understand there are more appropriate brown fill sites that can be built upon that would be better suited than stripping away green belt land.

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed GA2 development plan. The proposed development of 600 homes is a very large development and I believe the negative impact on the quality of life of current residents of Great Ashby and the strain caused to both the roads and local services such as doctors is unacceptably high. I understand the need to provide additional housing throughout the UK but feel that the needs and concerns of current residents need to be given as much consideration as the needs of future residents.

The GA2 proposals remove nearly all the green field access close to my home. I use both Brooches Wood and the field walks beyond on a regular basis for exercise as do many other residence. If the development goes ahead as planned my direct access will be significantly reduced to just Brooches Wood. Moreover, Brooches Wood is an area of ancient woodland and is a lovely bluebell wood. I specifically purchased mu house for its location and access to countryside. Following the development of GA2, Brooches Wood will be almost completely surrounded by houses which seems inappropriate, and to detract significantly from the experience of walking in it and to threaten wildlife. This will leave my area of Great Ashby underprovided with open spaces for walks to the detriment of the health and quality of life of locals. GA2 will, however, border directly on to green fields seeming to create an unfair imbalance between the current residents, and their needs and quality of life, and the residents of the new development.

I am also concerned by the impact this will have on the traffic in Great Ashby. The roads of Great Ashby are already busy, relatively narrow and heavily parked on making negotiating them already difficult. I do not believe the current streets could cope with any additional traffic. There are currently often long queues at rush hour to get from Great Ashby to the A1 for commuting and the proposed large development would worsen this situation.

Finally, it seems like the plans should be reviewed in light of the Brexit decision. The government have indicated that its primary aim in the negotiations will be to limit immigration. This seems to mean that the number of houses required in the period to 2031 will be less than would previously have been required. If the proposed plan was prepared prior to the referendum decision, it would seem to need to be reviewed. Given this very significant uncertainty regarding the UK's future housing needs, now seems completely the wrong time to agree the house building plans for the next 15 years.

I do understand the need for additional housing in the Stevenage and Great Ashby area. The needs of, and impact on current residents, should however be given equal consideration. The current plans for the Stevenage and Great Ashby areas seem to be mainly based around building a small number of very large developments. This solution seems to give rise to an unacceptably large negative impact on residents in a small number of areas and to lead to the destruction of large areas of green field land. If instead a larger number of developments of 100 or so houses were planned, more evenly spread around Stevenage as a whole, this would have a much more limited impact on individual areas. More, smaller, developments would also seem to give the opportunity to keep the impact on green field sites to a minimum which should be a priority and minimise the impact on wildlife. I understand this would be more complex to plan but the benefits to current residents appear very significant and the proposals would be much easier for people to accept.

Taking the above in to account, I would have no objections to 100-150 houses being built rather than 600 with these being arranged so that a greater amount of direct access green field site would still be available to Great Ashby residence (ie not a thinner band of houses all spread adjacent to Great Ashby but with a smaller area directly connected to Great Ashby so more direct green field access is retained). I would also not object to a greater number of houses being built if an area of green field land was left between Great Ashby and GA2 (eg creating a new, separate GA2 community rather than an extension of current Great Ashby). This would seem to give a better quality of life to both Great Ashby and GA2 residents. This would also create a fairer solution where both GA2 and Great Ashby would have a shared area of green field land between them they could both access. This contrasts to the current proposal whereby my part of Great Ashby loses nearly all direct green field access while GA2 connects directly on to green fields giving residence of the new development a better quality of life than current residents of Great Ashby.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to contact you with my concerns. I hope you will consider them and potentially look to modify your proposals to have a less adverse affect on local residents of Great Ashby.

Infrastructure and transportation networks are inadequately addressed in the parts of the plan relating sites East of Luton, to meet Luton's Unmet Housing Need East of Luton. I object that there is no justifiable need to declassify Land East of Luton from the Green Belt. There are many viable alternatives, so the Local Plan is not in accordance with the National Framework Planning Policy since it is not "absolutely necessary." I wish to change this plan. I want to participate in the Examination.

This will impact all of Luton; Wigmore, Stopsley, Eaton Green, and even Round Green, Stockingstone Road, and even the over-stretched Luton and Dunstable Hospital!

Building 2,105 upwards houses will lead to unacceptable problematic congestion consequences for this area, especially in the light of the airport's vast expansion which planned simultaneously for this side of town. Air quality and pollution has not be assessed in the residential areas around the airport.

The Transport Assessments were not robust. The their data was inadequate and inaccurate; they did not include impacts of all new developments in the vicinity, they were not carried out for long enough, and some studies from Luton Borough Council assumed roads that did not even exist. Traffic congestion in Wigmore is unacceptable levels.

Both LBC and NHDC have noted concerns over lack of necessary infrastructure and inadequate road networks due to the already existent congestion.

The Plan is not deliverable if the basic required infrastructure and transportation access has not been delivered also.

If you consider that Cockernhoe is 50 houses, the expansion threat is a huge 4,200 per cent!! This is disproportionate.

Wigmore currently consists of about 4,500 houses, so this proposal is an unacceptably disproportionate level of expansion on that side too. 2105 houses is like taking half the size of the entire Wigmore Area, and sticking it onto the side all over again.

Therefore logic would dictate that all other infrastructure must also be matched by an expansion of 50 per cent too - so half of every public service available in Wigmore; ranging from shops and retail outlets, car parks, secondary and primary schools, petrol stations, policing services, fire services, health services, dental services must all be also expanded to that same degree. Where will the money for all this come from? The developers will not be paying for any of it.

Cockernhoe Village will no longer even exist. It would destroy an entire rural community and displace a village. It would change the character of the area to an unacceptable degree.

There have been no mitigating solutions to the air and noise pollution that will be generated from the extra cars, or the airport expansion in this area.

The unmet housing need figure also shows inaccuracies. During Executive Meetings LBC stated the need for a collaboration between neighbouring councils to commission another Strategic Housing Management Assessment to re-examine once more the Unmet Housing Need figure assumptions, due to their estimated nature but far-reaching consequences and drastic impact upon the area. Luton's unmet housing need figure is based on migration statistics. The Plan does not consider how Brexit will affect these either.

So consider this written address that I wish to change the Local Plan and participate in the Examination.

I am writing to object to the NHDC's Local Plan for Codicote, on the grounds that it has not been positively prepared and is not justified, effective or consistent with the National Policy Planning Framework.

The plan will increase the total area of the village by one third, and not 25 percent as stated, as this would be added to the village of Codicote only and not the Parish of Codicote as a whole, which includes Pottersheath, Danesbury and Nup End . Adding an additional 364 homes (including those with previously granted planning permission) to the current total of around 1500 existing homes, will add between 500 and 1000 extra people to the existing village population of 3500. This will hugely increase traffic into and out of Codicote, which is already congested at peak times, contributing more noise and exhaust pollution to a relatively quiet rural village.

It is also my understanding that Ashill developers intend to submit a planning application for 200 homes on the Heath Lane site and not the 140 homes originally proposed. This does not accord with any sustainability proposals for development in this area.
Demand on local schools, GP services and Hospitals is already very high. Waiting times are up and parents already have difficulty in getting their children into the local JMI school.

Demand for water and drainage facilities are already causing concern as stated by Thames Water. Precious Green Belt land, designed in part to create separation between rural villages, will be lost. Specifically, the development South of Cowards Lane will link the village with the farm next door creating a conurbation between Codicote and Welwyn.

If 14,500 new homes are needed, and that is highly questionable, it would be much better to develop a new Garden City. This has already been proposed and would address the housing and infrastructure requirements for the size of development envisaged by NHDC.

The current plan, if implemented will adversely affect the character of the village of Codicote, taking away the very reasons why people choose to live here. The attractive layout and design, village community, ease of transport, natural environment and good facilities will all suffer under the pressure of the proposed new development.

I have lived in Bygrave for more than 30 years and I was born within one mile of the A507 in Bedfordshire. Because my parents both had parents living in Essex I regularly travelled on this route from a young age. My first memory of a traffic jam dates from 1950 when we were stuck on the A507 between Stotfold and Baldock which gave me a feeling of complete desperation that we might never arrive. Traffic gridlock is stressful for adults also and having worked in Letchworth Industrial Area for 12 years in the 1980's and 1990's I know that the bottleneck on the A507 entering Baldock is a continuing and progressive problem. It took me three times as long to drive to my workplace in the 1990's as it had done a decade earlier, and this was almost entirely due to traffic jams on the A507. I have driven the length of the A507 for both business and leisure for more than fifty years, and it is the proposed developments close to this road in the vicinity of Baldock that I most strongly object to in the NHDC plan. At a time when the Government is promising to spend more than one billion pounds to tackle congestion and claiming to promote "joined-up thinking" the NHDC plan appears to be completely at odds with Government policy.
The following points relating to the A507, to Baldock and its surrounding towns and villages should demonstrate the deficiencies in the local Plan.
A 507
1. This road provides an important east-west route with good links to the A1 and M1 motorways west of Baldock, and good links to Stanstead Airport and the East Coast ports to the east of Baldock.
2. There are no good alternative routes in this region.
3. Every town and village along this route has been bypassed in Bedfordshire. In Essex improvements to the route to both Stanstead and the coastal ports have been made. No improvements to the A507 have been made in Hertfordshire since the Buntingford bypass was built many years ago.
4. The only traffic lights and the only one way system on this road are in Baldock, which hosts the only section of this road that is subject to regular congestion and delays.
5. Lessons learned by most councils in the twentieth century should have informed NHDC by now. Most councils try to move major through roads out of town ( bypass ) rather than building the town around a through route, which is what the NHDC plan appears to do.

BALDOCK
1. It is an historic coaching and market town that benefited well into the twentieth century from the confluence of three major roads ( A1, A505 & A507 ) in the town. The rapid increase in traffic volumes during the last century meant that this became the main problem for Baldock which became the site of the worst traffic jams in North Hertfordshire.
2. Planning mistakes of the past, notably the extension of Baldock, Letchworth and Hitchin along the route of the A505, have resulted in one large built up area in which each town suffers from the proximity of its neighbours. Baldock is the the least accessible and most congested town in this conurbation .
3. It has become primarily a dormitory town with the majority of its working inhabitants employed elsewhere. Baldock ranks as the worst shopping venue of any town in the region according to Venuescope UK shopping index, as well as having the smallest projected growth of retail space. Lack of ready access makes it an unattractive location for most types of business. It would also almost certainly rank amongst the most deprived towns in terms of its recreational facilities or most other amenities. More housing will destroy rather than revive the town.
4. Previous bypasses - the A1M and Baldock Eastern bypass - have provided only temporary or incomplete solutions to the towns traffic problems., While A1 through traffic has been removed from the town, the attempt to divert traffic from the A505 has been less successful. The Whitehorse Street junction where the A505 crosses the A507 will always remain the focal point for the towns traffic problems, and it is stating the obvious to say that further building along either of these routes in Baldock will compound an already intractable problem.
5. Unfortunately the Council have contributed to the congestion in Baldock by siting an Industrial area on the A505 immediately north of and close to the Whitehorse Street junction with the A507. Lorries turning left at this junction from the A507 towards this industrial area often navigate the junction so slowly that traffic inevitably backs up behind them. Lorries travelling north along Whitehorse Street towards the Industrial area are usually wide enough to block the filter lane left onto the A507 when traffic is stopped at the junction. Apart from this badly located Industrial area, the building and infilling with resid ential properties on the north of the A507 all contribute to congestion in and around the Whitehorse Street junction.
6. Access to Baldock railway station is often compromised by long queues of slow moving traffic approaching the junction ( as is access to and from the Ashwell Road ). Thus it may soon become as difficult to depart from Baldock as it is to enter the town.
7. The solution to this growing problem is a moratorium on all building north of the A 507 and no further extension of Baldock along this road unless and until an A507 Baldock bypass has been built. In the meantime the Green Belt should be extended on the north side of Baldock to ensure no further infilling contributes to the congestion.
NHDC LOCAL PLAN
This plan fails to meet any of the NPPF soundness criteria. It is not positively prepared because it fails to take into account regional travel requirements, and the major developments are planned in the most inappropriate locations ( Area codes BA1 & BA2 ). It is not justified because even if this large number of new houses is required in North Hertfordshire, which I doubt, it is easy to identify more appropriate locations. I note that this plan proposes a large new retail park
park in Royston together with a limited amount of new housing. Venuescope reveals that Royston already has much better shopping, as well as better recreational facilities than Baldock. It lies on the same London-Cambridge railway line and even a large scale retail and housing
development would have minimal effect on through traffic. Thus it is a more suitable location for such development.

NHDC admit that their plan would have negative effects upon residents in Baldock, which would also apply to residents in nearby settlements. The proposed expansion of the town in area BA1 would effectively turn Bygrave into an inaccessible suburb of the inaccessible town of Baldock.
Among negative effects noted by the Council are the following:
Significant loss of agricultural land.
Reduced access to open countryside.
Traffic congestion and pollution.
Reduction in quality of landscape and townscape character.
Impacts upon amenities and "a reduction in tranquillity for existing residents".

It sounds like a very bad plan. It is. This plan should be rejected.

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:

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. The areas mentioned above are 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.

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

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 rush hour (morning and evening), 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 that we have witnessed year-on-year, currently 12.75 million (2015) with a projected increase per year to 22 million by 2030 this is set to worsen. Stockingstone Road and the A505 suffer equally.

b) The traffic survey carried out in 2015 was not done to industry standards i.e., for one month and also the results of the 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 does not exist, has not been proposed and that the council has declared there is no money to develop.

c) In the shorter term the projected airport development/business park/light industry will attract a further 7000 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 M1 via Lilley Bottom and Lilley as well as to seek access to Hitchin and Stevenage through Offley.

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

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'?

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

This area is teeming with wildlife (deer, owls, birds of prey, bats, etc.) all of which will be displaced. Wildlife corridors are no substitute.

Please let me be counted as I wish to change the Local Plan and participate in the Examination as I strongly object to the NHDC Local Plan 2011-2031.
First and foremost, the infrastructure and transportation networks are inadequately addressed in the parts of the plan relating sites East of Luton, to meet Luton's Unmet Housing Need East of Luton. The Transport Assessments were not robust and the data was inadequate and inaccurate; they did not include impacts of all new developments in the vicinity and they were not carried out for long enough. Some studies from Luton Borough Council assumed roads that did not even exist.
Currently, traffic congestion in Wigmore is already close to unacceptable levels; both LBC and NHDC have noted concerns over lack of necessary infrastructure and inadequate road networks due to the already existent congestion.
I also object that there is no justifiable need to declassify Land East of Luton from the Green Belt. There are many viable alternatives, so the Local Plan is not in accordance with the National Framework Planning Policy since it is not "absolutely necessary." I wish to change this plan. I want to participate in the Examination.
Building 2,105 upwards houses will lead to unacceptable problematic congestion consequences for this area, especially in the light of the airport's vast expansion which is planned simultaneously for this side of town. This will impact all of Luton; Wigmore, Stopsley, Eaton Green, and even Round Green, Stockingstone Road, and even the over-stretched Luton and Dunstable Hospital!
Air quality and pollution has not been assessed in the residential areas around the airport and there has been no mitigating solutions to the air and noise pollution that will be generated from the extra cars, or the airport expansion in this area.
Wigmore currently consists of about 4,500 houses, so this proposal is an unacceptably disproportionate level of expansion - nearly 50%.
Cockernhoe Village will no longer even exist. It would destroy an entire rural community and displace a village. It would change the character of the area to an unacceptable degree. If you consider that Cockernhoe is 50 houses, the expansion threat is a huge 4,200% increase, which is unacceptable and totally disproportionate.
Logic would dictate that all other infrastructure must also be matched by an expansion of 50 per cent too - so half of every public service available in Wigmore, ranging from shops and retail outlets, (we have one overstretched supermarket as it is), car parks, secondary and primary schools, petrol stations, policing services, fire services, health services, dental services must all be also expanded to that same degree. Where will the money for all this come from as the developers won't be putting these services in place.
The unmet housing need figure also shows inaccuracies. During Executive Meetings LBC stated the need for a collaboration between neighbouring councils to commission another Strategic Housing Management Assessment to re-examine once more the unmet housing need figure assumptions, due to their estimated nature but far-reaching consequences and drastic impact upon the area. I understand there are more appropriate brown fill sites that can be built upon that would be better suited than stripping away green belt land.

Please let me be counted as I wish to change the Local Plan and participate in the Examination as I strongly object to the NHDC Local Plan 2011-2031.
First and foremost, the infrastructure and transportation networks are inadequately addressed in the parts of the plan relating sites East of Luton, to meet Luton's Unmet Housing Need East of Luton. The Transport Assessments were not robust and the data was inadequate and inaccurate; they did not include impacts of all new developments in the vicinity and they were not carried out for long enough. Some studies from Luton Borough Council assumed roads that did not even exist.
Currently, traffic congestion in Wigmore is already close to unacceptable levels; both LBC and NHDC have noted concerns over lack of necessary infrastructure and inadequate road networks due to the already existent congestion.
I also object that there is no justifiable need to declassify Land East of Luton from the Green Belt. There are many viable alternatives, so the Local Plan is not in accordance with the National Framework Planning Policy since it is not "absolutely necessary." I wish to change this plan. I want to participate in the Examination.
Building 2,105 upwards houses will lead to unacceptable problematic congestion consequences for this area, especially in the light of the airport's vast expansion which planned simultaneously for this side of town. This will impact all of Luton; Wigmore, Stopsley, Eaton Green, and even Round Green, Stockingstone Road, and even the over-stretched Luton and Dunstable Hospital!
Air quality and pollution has not been assessed in the residential areas around the airport and there has been no mitigating solutions to the air and noise pollution that will be generated from the extra cars, or the airport expansion in this area.
Wigmore currently consists of about 4,500 houses, so this proposal is an unacceptably disproportionate level of expansion - nearly 50%.

Cockernhoe Village will no longer even exist. It would destroy an entire rural community and displace a village. It would change the character of the area to an unacceptable degree. If you consider that Cockernhoe is 50 houses, the expansion threat is a huge 4,200%, which is unacceptable and totally disproportionate.
Logic would dictate that all other infrastructure must also be matched by an expansion of 50 per cent too - so half of every public service available in Wigmore, ranging from shops and retail outlets, (we have one overstretched supermarket as it is), car parks, secondary and primary schools, petrol stations, policing services, fire services, health services, dental services must all be also expanded to that same degree. Where will the money for all this come from as the developers won't be putting these services in place.
The unmet housing need figure also shows inaccuracies. During Executive Meetings LBC stated the need for a collaboration between neighbouring councils to commission another Strategic Housing Management Assessment to re-examine once more the Unmet Housing Need figure assumptions, due to their estimated nature but far-reaching consequences and drastic impact upon the area. I understand there are more appropriate brown fill sites that can be built upon that would be better suited than stripping away green belt land.

I wish to note my objection to the housing expansion on the north of the Grange Policy SP15: Site LG1 - North of Letchworth Garden City

I do not believe this amount of housing is required, and I consider that the development is in breach of both the Council's aims and objectives (with regard to transport and congestion), together with those of the original Garden City movement. The Council is eager to promote the Garden City movement and its origins, both for academic and tourist appeal, and it must therefore honour these objectives and principles. The Garden City design was based upon a particular number of people being able to access both town and country; increasing the size of our town by too high a percentage makes this ambition impossible for residents in these new housing areas.

Any of the developments will create huge increases in traffic (both because of their location further away from the town centres/shops/stations, and because of the sheer number of houses). The council argues that it is working towards reducing traffic congestion and pollution, but these ambitions are incompatible with the proposed housing developments. Current train consultations are also proposing to reduce particular services from Letchworth to London causing more pressure and stress on those transport routes. Locally, there is a lack of reference in the proposals to crucial developments in infrastructure to cope with this influx of cars and people. Provision needs to be clear with regard to town centre and residential parking, doctors, schools, public transport.

It is my understanding that during an assessment in 2013, there were over 1000 empty homes in Letchworth. This is a waste of useable accommodation; converting and allocating these into useable accommodation would go a considerable way to solving the housing crisis. The local need for housing (in order to meet local population requirements and increases) has been independently assessed at 6000 new dwellings by 2031. Not the much greater amount quoted in the plan.

In summary, I believe greater care should be taken to ensure the correct number of houses are provided to cater for the predicted increase (rather than quick profit), and greater respect and honesty should be displayed towards the claims of the council to reduce pollution and congestion, whilst subscribing and promoting the original aims of the Garden City movement.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my representations.

My concerns about the local proposal are that the amount and number of the houses is too high. The effect will be to have continuous building for twenty years. I am not sure that this can be sustained.

The new estate stands the possibility of the same problems as bedevilled Great Ashby, Stevenage where the population turnover is some 24%. The reasons for this I understand are;
'GA is 4 miles from the town centre with very few local resources. A couple of shops and a community hall cannot cater for the current population. The school is way too small, roads too narrow and house frontages too close to footpaths meaning no room to park off-road. The net result is an estate that on first glance looks to meet family needs but once people move in they find it woefully inadequate, I have moved to within a 10 minute walk from the town. The kids now have the freedom to walk to friends' homes, the town centre shops and sports facilities. They now enjoy life much more.'

In order to prevent his situation we will need to hold the developers' feet to the fire and make sure that they do not cut corners.

This is a serious criticism and one which could consider in depth.

There is inadequate road provision. The Buntingford Road is used as a rat run and the traffic coming into Baldock need to be diverted onto the bypass before the town.

The lights at the junction of station road are inadequate to control the traffic. There does not need to be a left turn after the railway bridge. You will be aware that the traffic is built up for about a mile back and that arrival in the town from that direction often takes 20 minutes or more.

The road to Royston needs to be developed so that Hitchin Street is not used as a rat run from Letchworth East as it is now.

The railway bridge is inadequate. This needs to be widened and possibly a new line needs to be installed. The town will become a major feed to Cambridge and the line needs to be upgraded.

"I object to the NHDC Local Plan 2011-2031. I want to change many parts of this Local Plan. I want to participate in the Examination."
I wish to participate in all examination stages and change parts of the plan".
This letter is in support of my objections to the Local Plan.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the Green belt around Cockernhoe needs to be built upon. Luton has enough of it's own land.
The reasoning behind the Local Plan does not even acknowledge the existence of my house. It makes no reference whatsoever to the presence of any dwellings in Brick Kiln Lane. I have not been consulted and no thought whatsoever has been given to the impact I am faced with. I will find my house at the epicentre of a huge Luton estate.
I know this is unnecessary as a councillor from Luton actually stated so at the public "consultation" in Letchworth in July 2016. As he said, the developers are getting worried that so many properties are now being built around Luton that it may affect the eventual selling prices.
Bloor Homes have previously stated that their own traffic survey indicated that building on the fields either side of Brick Kiln Wood would not create any extra traffic in Brick Kiln Lane. It is actually quite frightening that people hoping to develop this area could either believe such rubbish or expect the local residents to believe it. Brick Kiln Lane is basically a single lane track with some passing places. The stretch to the front of my house certainly is and, as Brick Kiln Wood opposite is apparently safe from demolition, the road cannot be widened. It will never cope with the traffic that will come with the housing proposed.
One of the reasons cited for this area being chosen is that this area is "not beautiful". This is highly subjective and no basis for deciding to ruin it for ever. Elsewhere it is stated that the character of the Chilterns must be preserved. Well, Brick Kiln Lane forms part of the Chilterns Cycleway, therefore by NHDCs own edicts it's character must be preserved. This cannot be done by completely surrounding it with housing, particularly Luton social housing. Is the plan to let Luton create another Marsh Farm, maybe call it Cockernhoe Farm?
I cannot get an appointment at my local doctor's any more. It will be impossible with another 2000 homes in the area. The surgery cite the problem as being unable to recruit doctors to the area. It is therefore totally misleading and untrue to say that extra medical facilities will be supplied. The building might be (at the expense of yet more greenery) but it will be useless without the doctors to staff it.
I would estimate that traffic using the lanes, Chalk Hill, Stoney Lane, Lilley Bottom has increased least tenfold in the last 2 years. It is so busy and dangerous at certain times of day that I already prefer to take longer routes to avoid the problems. This is made worse by the dangerous condition of some parts of these roads. NHDC already say that they can only afford to repair a fraction of their roads. The extra traffic that would be brought to these lanes by the building of these proposed houses would create mayhem. They are not designed for the amount of traffic. They are largely single lane tracks with crumbling tarmac. There would be gridlock at best and fatalities at worst.
The wildlife in the area would be devastated. The fields earmarked for development are home to deer, rabbits, hares, dormice, field mice, foxes, birds of prey, and numerous other beautiful birds and insects. All would be lost.
Please do not allow this beautiful area to be destroyed. Luton has enough land to cater for it's own needs.

I write to express my objections to the proposal to develop green belt land in Codsicote, nr Hitchin, Herts for the purposes of additional housing. I was born in Dark Lane, Codicote in the 1960's and have lived there throughout my childhood and on & off during adulthood. I continue to spend considerable time there with family & friends & hence have considerable knowledge of the local community.
I would like to make the following points to support my objection to large scale development in Codicote & particularly the violation of green belt:
1. Codicote is a relatively small rural village which would not sustain a sudden expansion of housing stock of nearly 25%.
2. The proposal is all to take place on green belt land and is not in fill between established buildings.
3. Currently the population consists of a mixture of those employed locally in rural, retail & service industry and commuters travelling to larger conurbations including Stevenage, Hitchin, Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield, St Albans & London. There is no likelihood of the proposed expansion in housing being matched by a similar increase in local jobs hence there will be considerable increase in strain on transport links & the village risks becoming a dormitory town to London.
4. Codicote is situated on the B656 which is a very busy B road but is already struggling to deal with the current traffic density. The road is particularly narrow between Codicote & Welwyn (which is the nearest access to the A1(M)) & during peak hours entry onto this road from St Albans Rd, Heath Rd, Cowards La, Whitwell Rd & Rabley Heath Rd is very difficult & potentially dangerous due to sight lines & parked cars - these problems will only intensify with development of the village.
5. The B656 due to its route is well known as an accident blackspot between Codicote & Hitchin.
6. The access to Wheathampstead & St. Albans is via St. Albans/Codicote Rd, this is a narrow C road & is unsuitable for heavy traffic (and already accommodates HGV's & heavy plant from the Quarry)
7. There is no public transport from Codicote to St Albans & irregular/limited bus services to Hitchin, Welwyn & Stevenage. There is no Train station in the village & access to the mainline will require car use (cycling facilities are limited) with increase in congestion, pollution & car parking problems.
8. Educational facilities are limited to a primary school, which would struggle to manage an influx of pupils. The drop off & pick-up points for the school tends to be from St Albans Rd. accessing the school via a footpath alleyway (the road entrance to the school is on Meadow Way) - the volume of parked cars & traffic during School drop off creates dangers & delays.
9. Secondary school & higher education facilities are absent
10. There are no emergency services based in Codicote - the nearest hospitals are in Stevenage & Welwyn Garden City as are the nearest Police Stations there is a ?volunteer firestation in Welwyn (along with the Library). There are no GP primary care services within the village & based on personal experiences there is considerable difficulty in appointing new GPs in areas with a high cost of living due to NHS salaries. (I suspect this applies to almost all other community professionals eg Teachers etc)
11. There are no entertainment hubs within walking distance except village pubs.
12. There are no major supermarkets or retail outlets within walking distance.
13. The services in the village are limited or finite: The mains drainage is not designed to cope with the current demand (& Dark Lane does not have main drain); Water is pumped from the river Mimram, which often reduces to barely a trickle during Summer months; Internet speeds are slow.
14. The level of pollution from traffic & housing is likely to rise considerably particularly along the B656 which is the main village shopping centre/High Street.
15. There are limited crossing points across the High St/B656 but shops on both sides putting pedestrians at risk. Parking is limited in this area with cars encroaching on the pavements (further crossing points would increase vehicle traffic delays & potentially cause gridlock at peak times with consequent pollution problems)
16. The environmental impact will be huge - the proposal will destroy large areas of agricultural, grazing hedgerows & spinneys displacing wildlife & could risk eradicating or contaminating surrounding rivers.
17. There will be considerable light pollution generated by the development, which would particularly effect the Three Hills area & Mimram Valley and the Hamlet of Ayot St Lawrence, which is a known beauty spot.
18. The proposed access to the Heath la/St Albans Rd site(CD5) is not viable:
- The farm track between houses on the St Albans Rd is approx. 12 feet wide
- The narrow strip of land on Dark Lane is not wide enough for access to a major development (& would need to allow Emergency & sevice vehicles) and opens onto Dark lane which is unsuitable for motor vehicles, single track and has a junction on to St Albans Rd at a sharp bend with a very poor site line.
- The possibility of access via Heath La is also not viable as this again is a very narrow road & a steep (1:10) hill.

I can find little to commend the proposals and trust you will note the above points when considering the application.

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 walk and cycle in this area regularly with my family, 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 wish to object to Section EL1, EL2, EL3 Land east of Luton as I believe there are several areas where the Plan is unsound:
1. Removing this land from Green Belt status to meet 'Luton's Unmet Need':
The National Planning Policy Framework document states that the removal of Green Belt status does not fit the Government's criteria of "Except in Exceptional Circumstances". Luton's unmet need is NOT an exceptional circumstance. It also states "an unmet need is unlikely to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt unless there are very special circumstances". There are sufficient undeveloped Brown field sites in Luton to meet its unmet needs;
The removal of this land from the Green Belt as proposed in the NHDC Local Plan leaves this land unprotected and open to applications from developers.
2. The infrastructure surrounding the development, both into North Hertfordshire and Luton:
Luton Borough Council base their traffic modelling on an unbuilt link road to the A505 at Lilley. A Freedom of Information request states: "This transport modelling includes the alignment of the proposed spine road through that development site and Luton Borough Council have also assumed by 2031 that will be extended at its northern end to join the A505 near its junction with the road into Lilley". See Bloor Homes "Access and Masterplan slides" - "Newly constructed relief road linking Luton Road with Chalk Hill - is this the spine road?
However NHDC state on p.72 of the NHDC Local Plan, Para. 4.222 - "Our assessments show that this level of development can be accommodated without a significant adverse impact on the wider highway networks of Luton and Hertfordshire".
3. The proposal is completely out or proportion. 2,100 homes is 14% of the total allocation of houses in the NHDC Local Plan, a 1,025% increase on the 205 houses in the three hamlets, placing these, and the houses in Wigmore bordering the development into the middle of an estate.
Please acknowledge receipt of my representation.

See attachment

See attachment