Policy SP8: Housing

See Attached

See attached

See attached

See Attached

See attached

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
Too many houses and not enough amenities to cope. Schools will be overstretched. Roads will not cope with traffic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
Luton has a bad reputation as a team. However I live in this area and am bringing up my two children in this area and it's wonderful countryside. I would hate for it to exist for my children's sake. We struggle to get Drs appointments as it is and the schools are full. This development would impact my children's future negatively.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
This would be devastating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
All the reasons above!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
Pure greed on behalf of the developers and absolutely no thought or regard to the surrounding infrastructure and it's inability to support such a vast increase in housing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
I am 11 years old - please save the green belt for me. I like living here and going for bike rides but I sit for ages in traffic jams going to school so please build houses in the towns.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
The current road infrastructure will not cope, its already overloaded and gridlocked most days. There are not enough amenities to support more people. Local schools will be expected to cope with overcrowded classrooms. Yes we have a large Asda on our doorstep but its the only supermarket around this part of Luton and is always busy as people through out the area travel to it. Please don't destroy our beautiful green belt countryside when there is scope in brown field areas for development.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
Luton housing needs should be met from brownfield sites in Luton . Any development of Mangrove and Cockernhoe should be modest and retain their character as rural villages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -

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

There are 205 dwellings in Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green and Tea Green currently. An additional 2100 dwellings will be an increase of 1124%. This development is completely out of proportion to all other developments in the district - these villages and communities will cease to exist.
1. Of these additional dwellings 150 are for North Herts, the remaining 1950 are to meet Luton's supposed unmet needs, a number which hasn't been qualified when challenged.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
All the reasons mentioned above especially jnfrastructure.

Why destroy a beautiful area of green belt land which is enjoyed by many in the area when there are other more suitable non-green belt areas available.

I wish to make the following representations in response to the Submission Draft Local Plan.

The whole plan is "unsound" because it is fundamentally flawed in a number of ways:
* The supposedly objective assessment of housing need is based simply on projections produced by the Office of National Statistics. No attempt has been made to validate these against past trends. In fact they would require that houses are built in North Herts at a greater rate than has ever happened in the past. Since the plan is for the period from 2011 to 2031 a quarter of the plan period has already happened. During that time the rate of development has been less than half that projected for the plan period as a whole.
* The housing target has not been influenced by the need to limit or avoid building on green belt land. The government has said that assessed need does not, on its own, represent a case for building on green belt land, but that is exactly what the plan argues.
* The mechanism that has been used for identifying sites is flawed. The Council simply asked land owners or developers to suggest sites that they would like to develop (at least one major site has been put forward by a developer who does not own the site concerned). There has been no attempt to identify sites that would be suitable for meeting housing need whilst meeting community and sustainability requirements. The result is that housing is proposed in the locations that suit the developers rather than those that provide the best solution for the community.
* The plan includes inadequate provisions to would ensure that brown field sites will be developed first with green field and green belt sites only following later if the demand is shown to exist.
* The traffic impact assessment is totally inadequate. The plan relies on an assessment that covers Stevenage, Hitchin and most of Letchworth and Baldock, together with another that covers Royston. The largest development proposed at Baldock is beyond the edge of the area covered by the traffic model. In addition whilst the effects of Stevenage and Welwyn Hatfield are considered, Central Bedfordshire and the proposed developments there are completely ignored. The supporting report sets an absurdly high threshold for congestion, only regarding junctions as congested if they will have "more than 100" vehicles queuing at the end of the peak hour. The proposed mitigation measures fail to identify the extent to which the problem will be improved and the proposals appear to take no account of traffic diversion to rural or residential roads.
The second level of objection is to the flaws in the proposals for individual sites:
1. GA2 - Tilekiln
* The Green Belt boundary proposed around this development is unsuitable in that it does not follow any clearly defined natural features. For most of its length if follows a footpath or a poorly defined field boundary. The strange shape of the site relates to land ownership rather than any natural feature and demonstrated that this is not a suitable boundary.
* Access to the site from Great Ashby is restricted to a narrow path through a wood land beneath powerlines.
* The site is proposed as the location for a school, but placing a school right on the edge of a settlement in this way will ensure that many children are brought by car.
* The development will clearly relate to Stevenage (despite being in North Herts) yet is remote from any of the town's facilities and will encourage longer car journeys to shops, secondary schools and leisure facilities.
2. GA1 - Roundwood
* Access to the site is unsatisfactory, requiring measures to prevent parking on roads in Great Ashby that are outside the site.
3. NS1 - North Stevenage
* The Green Belt boundary proposed around this development is unsuitable in that it does not follow any clearly defined natural features. For much of its length it is in the middle of a field.
* The site will clearly result in coalescence of Graveley with Stevenage. The Council claims that Green Belts only exist to prevent coalescence of towns with other towns, not with villages but a recent appeal decision by the Secretary of State at Sawston in Cambridgeshire makes it clear that avoidance of coalescence of with a village is one of the objectives of the Green Belt.
* In addition it appears that access issues may not have been adequately considered.
4. WE1 - Weston
* Access to the Hitchin Road site needs to be from Hitchin Road and not from The Snipe.
*There is no pavement along a section of Hitchin Road that residents in the new development would need to use to get to the school, the shop and other village facilities. Any development here should require this to be addressed.
5. BA1 - Baldock
* The traffic assessments do not identify what would be required to make the large site north east of Baldock achievable.
* The land is admitted to "make a significant contribution to the Green Belt purposes".
* The site will clearly result in coalescence of Bygrave with Baldock. The Council claims that Green Belts only exist to prevent coalescence of towns with other towns, not with villages but a recent appeal decision by the Secretary of State at Sawston in Cambridgeshire makes it clear that avoidance of coalescence of with a village is one of the objectives of the Green Belt.
* The National Planning Policy Framework requires that, for proposals of this sort, infrastructure should be planned at the same time as the Local Plan is prepared but there are no details of this in the plan.
* If built the proposed road linking the A505 with the A507 north of Baldock would have inevitably see use as a Baldock eastern by pass. Its specification and construction would need to reflect this use which would require placing significant parts of the road in a cutting to avoid unacceptable impacts on both the urban area and the adjacent countryside.

I am very disappointed to read in the Comet that your plan incorporates 2000 more new homes than necessary, with the suggestion that this is linked to financial incentives under the New Homes Bonus Scheme. Shame on you. In Letchworth we have little enough green margin left and you, the "planners", are hell bent on destroying that little. I am sad and angry and ashamed of you, our elected body.

See attachment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
No one affected in this area wants nor supports the local plan. The homes can be built elsewhere or in luton itself as it is lutons unmet need.
Stop all of this development suggestion on our green belt.

There is no need to destroy the green belt land when there is enough brown field land. Ruining the countryside, and wildlife habitats is a horrendous idea. Luton doesn't need more housing, there is enough and the place is over populated already.

North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031: Housing development in Knebworth

With regard to the above, I write to register my objection to the proposed development of all green belt land on the outskirts of Knebworth, but in particular to the western edge of the village, referred to in the latest documentation as 52 Land at Deards End and 53 Land at Gipsy Lane.

Green Belt
Proposed sites 52 and 53 are currently part of the Knebworth House Estate. For many years, the estate has repeatedly offered this land for development to one scheme or another (regardless of the suitability of the land or location), eager to profit no doubt from its sale.

Both parcels of land are located within the green belt.

They form a buffer between the village and the farmland to the west and as such are important to the preservation of what is left of the rural character of the village and the farmland around it. The green belt policy was established to 'control urban growth, with the idea that there is a ring of countryside where development will be resisted for the foreseeable future, maintaining an area where agriculture, forestry and outdoor leisure can be expected to prevail'.

Recently, planning permission for a solar farm to be built on green belt land to the east of Knebworth (south of Three Houses Lane) was refused by the Secretary of State. The main issues for refusal were:
* harm to the green belt;
* loss of agricultural land; and
* the impact on local listed buildings.
If urban-scale development proceeds on sites 52 and 53, the green belt would certainly be harmed, there would be loss of superb agricultural land (which post-Brexit would be more vital than ever) and both proposed sites are next to conservation areas - Stockens Green/Gipsy Lane and Deards End Lane.

Water supply and sewage system
Any large-scale development would cause serious problems with regard to the supply of water to this development and with the disposal of sewage from it. Inevitably, households already established in this area would suffer further loss of water pressure (it is already very low, following the building of the high-density Orchard Way/Broom Grove estate) and also be affected by the over-usage of the sewage system. Extensive infrastructure investment would be required and I think it unlikely developers would be willing to lose too much profit investing substantially in that. I dare say any major works would then fall at great expense to the taxpayer.

Flooding
As things stand, properties in the Orchard Way/Broom Grove estate are increasingly subjected to flooding by water coming off proposed site 53 between Gipsy Lane and the motorway, despite much of this water being absorbed into the fields.

A report was commissioned after flooding occurred in 2014. With more and more extreme weather events happening (a problem not likely to lessen in the future), main recommendations explored to help reduce future flooding were:
* survey and clean the highway drainage system;
* increase frequency of gully cleaning;
* develop a programme of surface water management measures;
* look at individual property level protection; and
* monitor the effectiveness of the A1(M) attenuation storage pond.
As I currently understand it, measures recommended to help alleviate the problem have not been carried out fully by the necessary parties, i.e. the landowner (Knebworth House Estate), Hertfordshire County Council (responsible for Gipsy Lane, Orchard Way and Broom Grove) and the Highways Agency (responsible for the motorway).

If site 53 is concreted over, even less water will be absorbed and more flooding will occur - both on the Orchard Way/Broom Grove estate and in Gipsy Lane.

Access to/from the proposed development sites
To the west of the proposed sites lies the A1(M) motorway and beyond that agricultural and other rural land. The roads are narrow and, because of the volume of traffic currently carried, can be dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists.

To the east is the main body of Knebworth. Traffic in the area is heavy for most of the day, and almost invariably, every day sees a traffic jam of some sort on the main road, particularly when trouble arises on the motorway.

Any residents in the proposed new housing developments would need to drive from their homes to the village centre for local facilities, or to gain access to Stevenage in the north, Welwyn Garden City in the south and elsewhere. The new developments would make driving through Knebworth horrendous.

To get to the village centre, motorists would be forced to drive over either a small railway bridge from Deards End Lane to join the main road, or under one of two railway bridges over minor roads. I understand that the bridge over Deards End Lane has a weight restriction on using it and the two other bridges provide a narrow and awkwardly angled road for traffic using these routes.

Substantial additional traffic would also have environmental implications, particularly as all routes would be directed through conservation areas.

During the late 1970s the Orchard Way/Broom Grove estate was built, with some 220 houses (of which I believe 20 were built on a site originally designated for a primary school). There is one entrance/exit to this estate - onto Gipsy Lane and thereby through the conservation area. Since this estate was built, car ownership has increased tenfold and so the volume of traffic has thereby increased. This estate has a huge impact today on the Stockens Green/Gipsy Lane conservation area, but those 220 households will be dwarfed in comparison to the proposed development (which again has a school earmarked for inclusion, but will probably be quietly disregarded in favour of more profitable 'executive' homes and a few extra cars).

My point is this. Cars have been, and continue to be, a very real problem in the village. The Local Plan proposes swelling the village by over 30%. Driving through the village is a problem now. Parking is a problem now. Nothing has ever been done to satisfactorily resolve this. Building hundreds of new homes is hardly a solution to this.

Impact on rail travel
The village currently has a very large number of residents who commute daily to/from London for work. During weekday peak periods, there is normally overcrowding on services and the small station's platforms are generally very busy. In recent years, station usage has increased by 71% (with commuters from Knebworth and surrounding villages), and rail services have not adjusted to account for the demand. With the Victorian viaduct at Welwyn, there is limited capacity to substantially increase services that would be able to stop at Knebworth without impacting the faster, non-stopping services to/from the north.

Strain on local facilities
Doctors' surgery
The surgery is totally inadequate for the needs and demands of the current population of Knebworth and those in the surrounding villages who use this surgery as well, and at present there is some uncertainty where the surgery will finally be relocated to after its current site is redeveloped for flats.

The proposed new location (above the library!) is a long way from being settled as several residents in that area are unhappy with this location, the general appropriateness of this new site and the disruption/increase of traffic this would bring to the immediate area. A site that would have lent itself well (a former nursing home), has now been developed with 13 residential properties. That site would have allowed the surgery to expand sufficiently to cope with the requirements residents so badly need right now.

Primary school
The local primary school is, as I understand it, almost full to capacity. To build a separate, additional primary school is ill thought-out and in my view unnecessary. The existing school could have been substantially extended if the land recently developed next to it had been used. Flats were built instead (this time for affluent retirees). However, I do still feel the current school could be extended if necessary, by utilising some of its recreational ground. And why split resource to two different sites, when one site could benefit so much more?

Retail/businesses
Other than the high street, there are no more areas within the village for any form of retail/business expansion in which to serve the community. Every area that is available (or will become available), is and has been earmarked for residential development. This illustrates to me that there is no well thought-out plan intended for Knebworth to help it flourish, nor any prospect of offering new employment opportunities for locals. The reality is that most residents earn a living away from the village and it is unfortunately turning into somewhat of a dormitory.

Conclusion
The development proposed for Knebworth has exasperated local residents, with the majority opposing the plan put forwards.

The Local Plan shows proposals that have completely ignored residents' concerns and objections voiced during public meetings, in publications and online, by adding even more development sites than initially schemed. The growth is much too large for the area.

The Local Plan does not bring any benefits to Knebworth, only to property developers who will scar the landscape for profit before moving on.

The Local Plan is neither reasonable nor fair. It does not bring opportunity for employment within the village, or improve the quality of life for residents who moved here for a semi-rural environment. It will place strain on village facilities, resource and infrastructure.

The Local Plan is attempting to urbanise areas where it should not. It is planned solely around the willingness of landowners prepared to sell, not on the basis of whether the location and potential for good, reliable infrastructure and facilities is achievable.

The Local Plan would be the ruin of Knebworth.

North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031: Housing development in Knebworth

With regard to the above, I write to register my objection to the proposed development of all green belt land on the outskirts of Knebworth, but in particular to the western edge of the village, referred to in the latest documentation as 52 Land at Deards End and 53 Land at Gipsy Lane.

Green Belt
Proposed sites 52 and 53 are currently part of the Knebworth House Estate. For many years, the estate has repeatedly offered this land for development to one scheme or another (regardless of the suitability of the land or location), eager to profit no doubt from its sale.

Both parcels of land are located within the green belt.

They form a buffer between the village and the farmland to the west and as such are important to the preservation of what is left of the rural character of the village and the farmland around it. The green belt policy was established to 'control urban growth, with the idea that there is a ring of countryside where development will be resisted for the foreseeable future, maintaining an area where agriculture, forestry and outdoor leisure can be expected to prevail'.

Recently, planning permission for a solar farm to be built on green belt land to the east of Knebworth (south of Three Houses Lane) was refused by the Secretary of State. The main issues for refusal were:
* harm to the green belt;
* loss of agricultural land; and
* the impact on local listed buildings.
If urban-scale development proceeds on sites 52 and 53, the green belt would certainly be harmed, there would be loss of superb agricultural land (which post-Brexit would be more vital than ever) and both proposed sites are next to conservation areas - Stockens Green/Gipsy Lane and Deards End Lane.

Water supply and sewage system
Any large-scale development would cause serious problems with regard to the supply of water to this development and with the disposal of sewage from it. Inevitably, households already established in this area would suffer further loss of water pressure (it is already very low, following the building of the high-density Orchard Way/Broom Grove estate) and also be affected by the over-usage of the sewage system. Extensive infrastructure investment would be required and I think it unlikely developers would be willing to lose too much profit investing substantially in that. I dare say any major works would then fall at great expense to the taxpayer.

Flooding
As things stand, properties in the Orchard Way/Broom Grove estate are increasingly subjected to flooding by water coming off proposed site 53 between Gipsy Lane and the motorway, despite much of this water being absorbed into the fields.

A report was commissioned after flooding occurred in 2014. With more and more extreme weather events happening (a problem not likely to lessen in the future), main recommendations explored to help reduce future flooding were:
* survey and clean the highway drainage system;
* increase frequency of gully cleaning;
* develop a programme of surface water management measures;
* look at individual property level protection; and
* monitor the effectiveness of the A1(M) attenuation storage pond.
As I currently understand it, measures recommended to help alleviate the problem have not been carried out fully by the necessary parties, i.e. the landowner (Knebworth House Estate), Hertfordshire County Council (responsible for Gipsy Lane, Orchard Way and Broom Grove) and the Highways Agency (responsible for the motorway).

If site 53 is concreted over, even less water will be absorbed and more flooding will occur - both on the Orchard Way/Broom Grove estate and in Gipsy Lane.

Access to/from the proposed development sites
To the west of the proposed sites lies the A1(M) motorway and beyond that agricultural and other rural land. The roads are narrow and, because of the volume of traffic currently carried, can be dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists.

To the east is the main body of Knebworth. Traffic in the area is heavy for most of the day, and almost invariably, every day sees a traffic jam of some sort on the main road, particularly when trouble arises on the motorway.

Any residents in the proposed new housing developments would need to drive from their homes to the village centre for local facilities, or to gain access to Stevenage in the north, Welwyn Garden City in the south and elsewhere. The new developments would make driving through Knebworth horrendous.

To get to the village centre, motorists would be forced to drive over either a small railway bridge from Deards End Lane to join the main road, or under one of two railway bridges over minor roads. I understand that the bridge over Deards End Lane has a weight restriction on using it and the two other bridges provide a narrow and awkwardly angled road for traffic using these routes.

Substantial additional traffic would also have environmental implications, particularly as all routes would be directed through conservation areas.

During the late 1970s the Orchard Way/Broom Grove estate was built, with some 220 houses (of which I believe 20 were built on a site originally designated for a primary school). There is one entrance/exit to this estate - onto Gipsy Lane and thereby through the conservation area. Since this estate was built, car ownership has increased tenfold and so the volume of traffic has thereby increased. This estate has a huge impact today on the Stockens Green/Gipsy Lane conservation area, but those 220 households will be dwarfed in comparison to the proposed development (which again has a school earmarked for inclusion, but will probably be quietly disregarded in favour of more profitable 'executive' homes and a few extra cars).

My point is this. Cars have been, and continue to be, a very real problem in the village. The Local Plan proposes swelling the village by over 30%. Driving through the village is a problem now. Parking is a problem now. Nothing has ever been done to satisfactorily resolve this. Building hundreds of new homes is hardly a solution to this.

Impact on rail travel
The village currently has a very large number of residents who commute daily to/from London for work. During weekday peak periods, there is normally overcrowding on services and the small station's platforms are generally very busy. In recent years, station usage has increased by 71% (with commuters from Knebworth and surrounding villages), and rail services have not adjusted to account for the demand. With the Victorian viaduct at Welwyn, there is limited capacity to substantially increase services that would be able to stop at Knebworth without impacting the faster, non-stopping services to/from the north.

Strain on local facilities
Doctors' surgery
The surgery is totally inadequate for the needs and demands of the current population of Knebworth and those in the surrounding villages who use this surgery as well, and at present there is some uncertainty where the surgery will finally be relocated to after its current site is redeveloped for flats.

The proposed new location (above the library!) is a long way from being settled as several residents in that area are unhappy with this location, the general appropriateness of this new site and the disruption/increase of traffic this would bring to the immediate area. A site that would have lent itself well (a former nursing home), has now been developed with 13 residential properties. That site would have allowed the surgery to expand sufficiently to cope with the requirements residents so badly need right now.

Primary school
The local primary school is, as I understand it, almost full to capacity. To build a separate, additional primary school is ill thought-out and in my view unnecessary. The existing school could have been substantially extended if the land recently developed next to it had been used. Flats were built instead (this time for affluent retirees). However, I do still feel the current school could be extended if necessary, by utilising some of its recreational ground. And why split resource to two different sites, when one site could benefit so much more?

Retail/businesses
Other than the high street, there are no more areas within the village for any form of retail/business expansion in which to serve the community. Every area that is available (or will become available), is and has been earmarked for residential development. This illustrates to me that there is no well thought-out plan intended for Knebworth to help it flourish, nor any prospect of offering new employment opportunities for locals. The reality is that most residents earn a living away from the village and it is unfortunately turning into somewhat of a dormitory.

Conclusion
The development proposed for Knebworth has exasperated local residents, with the majority opposing the plan put forwards.

The Local Plan shows proposals that have completely ignored residents' concerns and objections voiced during public meetings, in publications and online, by adding even more development sites than initially schemed. The growth is much too large for the area.

The Local Plan does not bring any benefits to Knebworth, only to property developers who will scar the landscape for profit before moving on.

The Local Plan is neither reasonable nor fair. It does not bring opportunity for employment within the village, or improve the quality of life for residents who moved here for a semi-rural environment. It will place strain on village facilities, resource and infrastructure.

The Local Plan is attempting to urbanise areas where it should not. It is planned solely around the willingness of landowners prepared to sell, not on the basis of whether the location and potential for good, reliable infrastructure and facilities is achievable.

The Local Plan would be the ruin of Knebworth.

See attachment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
To much of our beautiful countryside is being turned into housing developments. The roads into Luton are horrendous at the moment I can't imagine what the traffic would be like if this went ahead!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
There seem to be many empty buildings and areas that need development in Luton. Once these green areas are gone they are lost FOREVER
These green belt areas are for everyone and for everyone's children. Please think about this very very carefully for them

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
The infrastructure is clearly not there. Ever sprawling urbanization is destroying greenbelt land. There are plenty of brownfield sites which have not been exploited fully. Most worrying is the trend by private developers to provide executive style homes which encourage more people from outside the area. They do not address the need for affordable housing for local people. It is very short-sighted and greedy. Once these areas are lost, they are lost forever. We need to protect our greenbelt and the wildlife for future generations to enjoy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
I feel very strongly that there is more than sufficient brownfield land available that could be used ,before creating SUCH disruption to this very small environment ...please please look long and hard before approving this devastation ....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
My journey to work via Crawley green Road and stockingstone is already nearly unbearable. I would invite the inspector to join me on my excruciatingly slow journey. I would like the opportunity to meet the inspector to discuss this, and would appreciate the opportunity to be present in any future meetings. We are a small community who actually interact with each other and join together to walk dogs in the surrounding green belt, this is there for a reason. A so called unmet need is not the exceptional circumstances required to change green belt status. Please please consider the adverse effects that the additional traffic, congestion of roads and loss of the countryside that is enjoyed by so many, particularly those from Luton. This development will alienate residents of Mangrove, Cockernhoe and Tea Green from the rest of North Hertfordshire. Not the aim of a well thought out local plan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
Because being a regular cyclist in this area I see many local people walking and cycling within the confines of the proposed developments. This development will not only curtail their present leisure activity but their health too whilst I understand the need for new housing the amount of housing that is protected is fat too much.

I wanted to take the time to write to you in hope that my voice will be heard.

I am a Baldock resident and I am sure you will have heard a lot from us in recent months.

My plea is simple, please reduce your plans. I have read through the detail and understand that people need a place to live and the area needs to be kept affordable.

That said, what happens to the items below:

* A1 - Cannot sustain any more traffic, even if extended. 15 miles takes 45-60 minutes at present.
* Whitehorse Street Crossroads (A507) - Traffic is always backed up and a link road will not take the load off.
* Possible reduction in rail service.
* Locations further south have been ignored - Hertford? Hoddesdon? Both have better infrastructure.
Even without the concerns above, what happens to Baldock? We live here to enjoy the community spirit of a place that pulls together. Extending it will not add to the community in anything other than numbers.

Thank you for reading my message and I hope you hear our voice.

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. 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 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. 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 A505 suffer equally

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 does not exist has not been proposed and has been stated by the Council that there is no money to develop. 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.

The two country lanes with insufficient passing places which lead out of the site into North Herts are already being used as dangerous rat runs. This will increase as residents seek to access the M1 via Lilley Bottom and Lilley, and seek to access Hitchin, Stevenage and the A1 through Offley.

The paths and woodlands are used by villagers and people from neighbouring Luton as a leisure area for walking, running, cycling and other leisure activities. These 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 the proposed development.

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

In addition to the above the local schools, nursery places, GP surgeries and dental practices are already oversubscribed, having to wait up to two weeks for a doctor's appointment.

Parking and infrastructure at the local shops/supermarket is woefully inadequate.