Policy SP19: Sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 - East of Luton

Destruction of Green belt
Road infrastructure will not support any more traffic on country lanes
Significant increase in air,light and noise pollution
Destruction of wildlife habitat
Insufficient secondary school places

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 and east of Luton for the several strong reasons:-

This area is Green Belt, and there is no supporting evidence that the application meets the "Very Special Circumstances" required to build on it as stated in paragraph 80 and 83 of the National Planning Framework. The Green Belt Boundaries should not be amended in response to an individual planning application.

The plan cites 1950 buildings are required to be built to support Luton' unmet needs. This statement cannot be supported by Luton Borough Council who in the past five years have used Brownfield sites to meet 2200 such dwellings, with more planned in the period 2016 to 2031. This number has not been qualified when challenged and there is insufficient evidence to conclude the dwellings are needed.

The Local Plan itself outlines strategic Objectives which need to be met by its own standards. These are:-

ENV1 The site needs to be sustainable.... this is clearly not the case as there is no public transport to this development from North Herts, there is no school on the EL3 site, and the proposed school on the EL1 site is too far away for pupils to walk, this means that the vast majority will be driven to school. The mere fact that the local dentists, doctors surgery, pharmacy, Tidy Tip, Library, banks, Hospital and shops are all in the Borough of Luton mean that these resources will be oversubscribed.

ENV1 reduce water consumption .... this will not be the case with 2100 homes being proposed.

ECONT discusses the need to minimise travel,, which will not be achievable as the only roads into North Hertfordshire are single access roads which are already used as rat runs.

SOC1 and SOC3 will not be achievable either.

Transport links as described above will not pour out towards the North Herts Borders. This will see droves of vehicles pour down the Crawley Green Road, to the already over breached Wigmore Lane Roundabout intersection. The consequence of this will knock on to the access routes to the Town Centre and the Airport, where access is limited in normal time, let alone rush hours at each end of the day.

The airport itself is looking to expand with more passengers and business parks the objective. This growth inevitably means more than 5000 vehicles pouring in to this already over congested area on a daily basis, without the building of these dwellings.

The obvious need for a link road from the A505 to the Airport itself would balance this out, but as yet there is no plan for this on the Luton Borough Council schedule and this is not apparent in the North Herts District plan either... without this road this planned development is doomed to failure, let alone the fact that funding for such a road has not ben mentioned by either Council. The traffic survey carried out in 2015 was not representative and was not carried out to industry standards and needs to be revisited.

Unjustly the burden for the resources will be borne by Luton Borough Council, whilst the benefits of government grants and rates revenue will be enjoyed by North Herts.

As stated, this development is not needed, meets no objectives of the Luton Borough Council, gives no thought for sustainability and as for traffic in an already overcrowded area, no provision has been made to counter the already compelling argument that the roads will be unable to cope. For these reasons I wish to register my objections.

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.

I live in the Wigmore area of Luton and I wish to object in the strongest terms to the planned development in the Cockernhoe area for the following reasons:
* I do not want to see thousands of houses built on this country's diminishing green belt land. Whilst I appreciate that there is a need to build additional housing, there are a number of "brown field" sites in and around the Luton area that should be developed first.
* The proposed development would bring an increase of at least 1,000 additional cars into the area and the existing road infrastructure cannot cope with such an increase. Already, there are lengthy traffic delays in the area at peak times.
* With the increase in traffic will come an increase in noise and an increase in pollution, which will have a detrimental affect on the local population.
* Village life will be eradicated altogether.
* Wild life e.g. deer will disappear from the surrounding woods.
If permission is granted to build this development, then other developers will also submit proposals for a housing developments and, before long, the whole local countryside will disappear under a 'concrete jungle', which should be avoided at all costs.

I sincerely hope that the concerns of the existing local residents will be taken into account.

Once again I find myself objecting to the above on the grounds of there being no new major road construction planned meaning all site traffic will be accessing this site by means of an already over used road system, plus if this gets the go ahead means all the extra traffic from the homes being built. 660 homes planned could mean over 1000 vehicles leaving and returning via the only access road which leads out to a country lane. Imagine the chaos!!

Lets not even talk about using public transport. Wigmore doesn't have a very good bus service as it is. Take that from someone who would love to use public transport but its just not feasible.

Then of course we need to address the problem of schools. The local schools are already full. Are there plans for a school as I'm sure Cockernhoe school couldn't cope with such an increase.

Then of course there's the doctors. Existing residents have to wait up to 3 weeks to see a doctor and if its an emergency then you're told to go to the walk-in centre. I know this for a fact as its happened to me and is totally unacceptable. I have been informed that all doctors surgeries in the Wigmore area are over subscribed and are still taking on new patients!!

All this and still not taking into account local endangered wildlife.

660 new homes planned by Crown Estates with a further over 1,000 new homes planned by Bloor homes within the same vicinity of Wigmore but taking in Tea Green.

We the undersigned would like to object to your plans on the grounds that the plans have not been positively prepared for the following reasons.
1. Lack of infrastructure, schools, roads, amenities and total lack of consideration for local environment.
2. Roads are at breaking point without adding add traffic
3. Better plan would be to build on land between Luton and Harpenden with access to junction 10 of motorway.
4. No green space left for communities. Gap between Luton and Herts villages closed. Luton already has a lack of space for its inhabitants.

As a resident of Lalleford Road Luton, I oppose the plan to build 600 houses in the area between Luton and Cokernhoe village.
I also oppose future plans for housing between the A505 , down the East side of Luton, as far South as Breachwood Green.
The area near Cokernhoe will have only one traffic access, Luton Road, which becomes Crawley Green Road into Luton.
This area , Crawley Green Road, Wigmore Lane, Eaton Green Road, and the interconnected smaller roads where I live,
Are already gridlocked at peak times , and even a small blockage, like cars parked by airport workers and passengers,, causes even more carnage.
New roads could be put into this development, taking access to the North of Stopsley, or into the current Wigmore estate at various points,
But these would still eventually flow into these blocked roads.
At times Crawley Green Road is solid traffic from the roundabout at St Mary's Church in town, right to here, how can this extra
Traffic fit into that?
This housing will contribute between 600-1200+ more vehicles onto this area, public transport will be non-existent , as it is already,
So new residents will have no alternative , but to use their cars.
If these new residents work at Luton Airport, they will dump their cars in the Vauxhall Park/ Wigmore areas , as they do now,
As they will not be able to park at airport, this is not acceptable to quality of life for the residents of this area.
The land where these houses are planned, is prone to flooding each year, due to its heavy clay soil, where will
This water runoff, when it's covered in concrete?
There are many brown field sites in Luton, capable of taking smaller developments, to the total of these housing numbers,
Therefore spreading traffic/schooling/healthcare around the town, as opposed to concentrating in one already overcrowded area.

I would raise an objection to the proposed plan covering the area surrounding Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green and Tea Green (Sites EL1, EL2 and EL3) for the following reasons.

1. The development is on Green Belt Land. Doesn't this mean anything now? Do we not have any brown field sites?
2. The amount of new homes compared to the homes at present is a massive percentage increase.
3. Once again we have plans that add to an already congested road system. The traffic in the area over the past couple of years has increased significantly without adding an extra 3000 plus vehicles to the area and I expect that would be on the low side.
4. Many residents in the area use the area for country walks.
5. I also strongly suspect this would become the start of yet more developments.

Many in the area have the same views, so please take our views in account.

I am writing to strongly object to the plans to build at the sites EL1,EL2 and EL3 around the East of Luton.
Firstly it would completely absorb the village of Cockernhoe and Mangrove Green, no matter how large the "buffer" area is around this new estate it will cause the village to disappear. Tea Green to the south would also disappear, these villages need to be left as stand alone villages! This is GREEN BELT, there are plenty of brown field sites around Luton that would be more suitable for housing with better infrastructure to take many new houses. This leads me on to my next point infrastructure, the traffic around this part of town is already quite bad, what with the extra passengers coming to the airport and airport staff and general traffic the roads are often very busy queues in excess of 700 metres are quite common daily along Eaton Green Road and Crawley Green Road to add another possible 5000 cars to this without improving the road layouts will be horrendous.
These people will also need feeding there is only one supermarket locally which is also very busy at the moment so adding thousands of more people will cause a real problem which means the current local population may go else where to shop adding to the other traffic problems in town Stockingstone Hill for example. Doctors and schools cannot cope in this area now let alone when 5000+ additional people turn up.
This is a nice bit of country side with quite a varied selection of wildlife that will be all driven away by so many houses and all the extra traffic, many people use this area for recreation IE walking, running, cycling and horse riding, this will all be ruined. I know we need more houses but there are other areas that would be more suitable, once this area has gone its gone for good, the villages will be lost forever, Luton, Dunstable, Houghton Regis and Stopsley were all individual towns and villages NOW it is just one large mass with no physical boarders, apart from street signs you would not know where one ends and the next begins, please don't add Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green and Tea Green to this mass!!

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:-

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.

We are writing to record our objection to the above application of 660 dwellings on the following grounds:

*The emergency access route on the proposed map is planned on the land that currently has a listed building home on it. This listed building would have to be knocked down in order for this emergency access road to be built.
*This development would unnecessarily destroy green belt and beautiful countryside currently enjoyed by a great number of people in both North Herts, Luton and beyond. This rural community and the urban community at the edge of Luton have been blighted for long enough by these and similar plans. In Cockernhoe, Mangrove, Tea Green, Wandon End and Luton these plans adversely affect over 1,000 people. The plan would destroy the rural nature of this community. These villages/hamlets currently comprise over 150 homes.
This would also destroy the community spirit that still exists in these small communities and is so sadly lacking in big towns and developments.

The current plan have one single road for access to this development. This road comes off a narrow, single traffic country lane .This lane already cannot cope with the traffic that comes in and out of Cockernhoe, particularly at school times.660 new homes and thus probably over 400 cars will not help this.

The plan shows many suds between Copthorne and this new development. There is no adequate draining, thus stagnant water would be encouraged and therefore infestations would flourish and be a health hazard
Local schools at Cockernhoe and Wigmore are already oversubscribed. The application does not indicate where the additional children will be educated.
NHDC rejected this site for valid reasons when previously proposed by Luton in recent years.
This development would not realistically help towards the NHDC's target as it would more service Luton's requirements.
Luton has many brownfield sites that could be developed. It would be a more eco-friendly option, as the roadways infrastructure is lacking in this area.

I object to the above application for the following reasons.
It is said this development is to help Lutons unmet housing needs, this would only be true if the properties were only sold to persons on Lutons housing list, and the Hertfordshire county boundary would need to be redrawn to include this development into Luton council boundary. Lutons unmet needs could be met if the Bushwood site was developed, as was planned when the M1 motorway was built, when 2 very large tunnels were built to allow access to this site. Luton also has plenty of unused brownfield sites. So has no need of NHDC "help".
Some towns and villages in North Herts have no or limited developments planned, but NHDC have ensured they keep a complete Green belt around them, this follows government guidelines that communities should not coalesce.I wonder how many councillors and officials from North Herts live in these places, there are certainly none living in Luton as NHDC do not care if Luton residents loose part of their green belt, which is against government guidelines that communities should not coalesce.

The infrastructure of Luton cannot cope with any more traffic, they are gridlocked around Crawley Green and Eaton Green roads as it is. 2000 extra homes could quite easily mean 3000 extra vehicles on Lutons roads at peak times, as there is no feasible route for any of these vehicles to go into North Herts unless the council and government commit to spending £millions on new roads before planning consent is granted, roads which would need to be in place before any building work starts. NHDC has not taken into account the new special needs school being built on Crawley Green Road. This will need access, probably a roundabout. Further slowing traffic at peak times.

No account of the Luton Airport expansion has been taken into account, this will inevitably lead to further air pollution, already depending on wind direction and cloud cover, kerosene fumes drift over the area, with further aircraft movements this will increase. Are NHDC and the Government prepared for legal action over cancers, asthma and other illnesses that can result from their granting of building development in an area of known high pollution, when proper investigations have not been carried out.

I and plenty of other people have registered with NHDC over this matter, and we are all finding it impossible to register our complaints on this website, and are having to use other sites to complain., either your website is not fit for purpose, or is this deliberate. I will be sending a copy of this e-mail to the Secretary of State for him to ask questions about your website.
Please send acknowledgement of receipt.

I am writing to express my bewilderment at the plan to build 660 dwellings on land West of Cockenhoe and East of Copthorne

I fully understand that very few householders would want such a dwelling on the doorstep and the need to offset the NIMBY mentality with the need for more housing. That is not the reason for this letter.

In short, I question though whether anyone in a decision making position has actually visited this area. It is so totally unsuitable by the nature of its road structure and general support amenities as to be completely incomprehensible why this decision is even being considered.

I live on Stony Lane and invariably face delays travelling in either direction due to the narrowness of the roads and lack of area for passing. You can sometimes park - or wedge on a bank - waiting for a dozen or 15 cars to come from the opposite direction, only to find half a dozen vehicles lodged behind yourself. At peak times can take 25 minutes to travel the two miles to the Hitching-Luton road.

Other amenities such as phone lines and internet are absolutely inadequate. I live within sight of Luton Airport but the phones and internet service belongs in the slums of Delhi. There are grossly inadequate school and medical facilities in the area.

Absolute madness and I would hope my Member of Parliament will be asking searching questions as to how this preposterous idea has progressed this far.

See attachments

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment