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

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

I wish to strongly disagree with the proposed plan to build on "Green Belt" land bordering east Luton.

Why is a plan being put forward, being considered to build on Green Belt land at all? Land is classified as Green Belt for very good reasons and I can see no "good" reason to change the status of the land east of Luton. The country relies on us all abiding by the rules and regulations that have been agreed/passed by government and the people of this land so why is the current status under consideration?

There is no doubt that more homes are required in this country but care must be taken on where new homes are built so as to preserve a balance for all of the community.

I understand that there are numerous "Brown Field" sites within the Luton area that may better meet the development requirements and I hope that these will be fully considered before the irrevocable step is taken to permanently change the status of this very cherished plot of "Green Belt" land.

As a life long resident of Luton, I wish to participate in the Examination Stages for NHDC Local Plan 2011-2030, and wish to change parts of the Plan.

I ask you to please consider my objection as you carry out your review.

See attached

Representation on the Local Plan 2011-2031 submission document ("LPSD")
Objections
1.1 The LPSD proposal of 2,100 homes to the East of Luton will destroy the rural nature of the village of Cockernhoe. Reference to Cockernhoe can be backdated to the 10th Century by a manuscript of 980AD. The village of Cockernhoe, incorporating Mangrove, numbers 130 dwellings. Cockernhoe ward numbers 205 dwellings. The nearest point of Cockernhoe village to the existing Luton dwellings is 200 metres and this boundary around the village should not be encroached upon as it is surely the minimum needed to retain Cockernhoe's rural nature. In my view the release of Green Belt land surrounding the required settlement boundary of Cockernhoe would not meet the "tests of soundness" set out in the National Planning Policy Framework ("NPPF") -see 1.5 below.
1.5 The NPPF specifically seeks to stop urban sprawl where this affects communities. This is clearly the case with regard to Cockernhoe and other villages/communities affected by this East Of Luton proposal, which should be stopped.
1.7 The 2,100 homes to the East of Luton proposal is not "exceptional circumstances". Considering the objections to the proposal by residents of Luton in addition to those of North Herts it is disturbing that NHDC has recommended this proposal.
There are alternative areas, such as land adjacent to Butterworth Green and North of the A505, which could be developed without encroaching upon any existing settlement. There is no need to destroy the rural nature of an existing community, Cockernhoe, which has existed for more than 1,000 years.
The need to properly assess the need for development is difficult. In December 2012 NHDC concluded the need was 10,700 dwellings. By 2014 this had increased to 12,200 for their own needs and now in 2016 to 14,000. This must be due to immigration and therefore it must be concluded that "Brexit" will reduce this figure - but NHDC say not! None of us knows what the result will be! To make a decision in the next 5 years to destroy the rural nature of Cockernhoe and associated communities in Cockernhoe ward and the affected areas of Luton is surely irresponsible! The 14,000 dwellings required by NHDC for its' own needs already represents an increase of 25.5% compared to the 55,000 dwellings existing in NHDC in 2011. In England as a whole there were 22,976,000 dwellings in 2011 (Housing statistics release 28th April 2016 by the Department for Communities and Local Government). A 25.5% increase overall in England would mean this number of dwellings increasing by 6.0m by 2031,representing a population increase of 14m which is clearly incorrect. In the period from 31st March 2001 to 31st March 2015 the increase in dwellings in England was 2.3m. In conclusion the need for 14,000 new homes is virtually a guess having increased by 31% from the estimate in 2012. Thus these additional new homes should not be added to by the extra 2,100 homes for Luton. See clause 2.8 below for calculation of the figure needed.
1.8 The duty to co-operate should be qualified as to "where they are able to". A significant proportion of residents of North Herts already work outside the district, see clause 2.76, and this would be the same with the 14,000 homes required for North Herts own needs. Thus surely NHDC has already complied with its' duty to co-operate.
1.9 To the West of Luton Redrow is building some 350 homes at Caddington Woods. This is some 650m from the outskirts of the Bedfordshire village of Caddington. Why is this development so small? There was a proposal to build 5,500 homes there in 2015 that was rejected by Luton, see www.bushwood.info/docs/Bushwood-Masterplan.pdf. This was as close to Caddington as the 2,100 dwellings are to Cockernhoe. I believe Luton councillors were concerned about objections from residents of the village of Caddington but obviously completely ignored the objections by North Herts residents and those from affected areas of Luton. Similarly the majority of NHDC councillors have ignored the objections from their community.
1.19 Whilst NHDC have consulted with the local community on the incorporation of the 2,100 homes to the East of Luton they have ignored their objections. There is little purpose in requiring a consultation process if you ignore the result.
1.22 Similarly to 1.19 above the previous consultations have been ignored.
1.26 Similarly to 1.19 above the previous consultations have been ignored.
1.27 Similarly to 1.19 above the previous consultations have been ignored.
2.8 The forecast of an increase in population in North Herts of 24,000 by 2031 does not require the building of 16,000 new dwellings. Assuming households on average of 2.4 this would require 10,000 new dwellings. There is significant inconsistency in these figures. If you then add the 1,600 households on the housing register (clause 2.25) you would need a maximum of 11,600 homes.
2.77 The intention to improve physical and mental wellbeing for the several thousand residents of Wigmore, Luton and Cockernhoe ward affected by the 2,100 homes to the East of Luton is completely ignored by this proposal.
2.83 The new development of 2,100 homes East of Luton will not:
(a) Enable the village of Cockernhoe to embrace their role within North Herts. The village will be lost forever and just be part of the urban community of Luton
(b) The District's historical rural areas will not be protected
3.7 Cockernhoe is being sacrificed and it is clear is outside NHDC's strategic objectives for ENV2, ECON4, ECON 6. I do not believe that ECON8 will be possible for the 2,100 dwellings proposed and think the road infrastructure will not be possible to accommodate this growth. I cast doubt on the methods of collection of the data. For instance in the last two months we have had 3 occasions where the roads have been gridlocked for various reasons. When you are sitting in such a traffic jam how does the cables across the road measure that. They surely measure the traffic that crosses them and not the queue of traffic wanting to cross them. SOC 4 is being completely ignored for the rural community of Cockernhoe where its' residents have objected to these plans over the course of the last 8 years.
4.0(b) Once again Cockernhoe is being excluded from this policy. The 2,100 homes surrounding Cockernhoe are twice as big as the future increase to the District's largest town of Hitchin (1,009).
4.9 The settlement boundary of Cockernhoe, within the classification of a Category "A" village, should not be expanded to include the area covered by the land allocated for the 2,100 homes. Such area should be given a classification of its' own so that objections can be raised against that but not reflect on Cockernhoe's own inclusion within the policy of category "A" villages.
4.13 Similarly to 4.9 above the East of Luton development should not be associated with Cockernhoe's own settlement boundary.
4.53 I disagree that the 2,100 proposal East of Luton, resulting in the rural nature of Cockernhoe being destroyed, qualifies as existence of "exceptional circumstances".
4.55 Green Belt is surely pointless if it can be removed by Council at will and against the will of the local community affected by its' removal.
SP6 I do not believe that adequate proposals have been made to deal with the road infrastructure needed for the 2,100 homes proposed.
SP8 (b) I disagree with this policy.
SP19 This policy should be cancelled as inappropriate and undeliverable to the satisfaction of residents of Cockernhoe and the affected parts of Luton.
13.66 I totally disagree with inclusion of the East of Luton expansion within the Cockernhoe settlement boundary. It should have a classification of its own.

Support
4.9 Policy SP2 concerning general development being allowed within the defined settlement boundaries of the Category "A" villages is a significant step forward. These 23 villages include Cockernhoe but the settlement boundary of that village has been expanded to include space for the 2,100 new homes planned. This is wrong the settlement boundary of Cockernhoe is clearly shown on the map in white. The additional area coloured brown should not be associated with Cockernhoe's settlement boundary but should be attributed a classification of its' own.
SP5 (a) (iii) I support the definition of settlement boundaries for villages, including Cockernhoe, in SP2, see 4.9 above that were previously "washed over" by the Green Belt.
SP7 I'm in full agreement with this policy.
4.128 I agree with the NPPF, which supports the argument to exclude the proposed 2,100 new homes East of Luton.
8.5 Policy HS2 I agree with fully.

I strongly object to the proposed redevelopment plans on the following grounds:-

- the proposed development is on green belt land and there is no justification for overriding this status. There are alternative brown field sites within the Luton area that can be developed to provide additional homes, notably the area behind the Vauxhall plant. Even If there is a justification to use green belt land, the ares between Stockwood Park and the motorway up to the relief road would be a better choice with less environmental impact.

- 2,100 homes is an excessively large development (equivalent to a whole new town) that would totally change the character of the existing area, destroying valuable wildlife habitat and a leisure amenity for walkers and cyclists.

- the infrastructure of the area could not cope with the proposed development under these plans. The strains on the water, sewage and road systems would be huge and the plans to not adequately address how these problems would be overcome

In summary, this is a totally unnecessary destruction of green belt land that would have a material adverse effect on the local environment and which would put an intolerable strain on the local infrastructure.

These plans should be torn up and less destructive development of brown field sites should be prepared instead.

I write to formally object to the above Local Plan proposal to build new homes in North Hertfordshire, adjacent to Luton, and in the vicinity of Mangrove Green, Cockernhoe, Tea Green, Wandon End, Wigmore, Brick Kiln Lane, Rochford Drive, Copthorne and Putteridgebury, just to meet LUTON'S UNMET NEEDS or to be more precise their desire to extend their boundaries. Luton has adequate sites within their own county boundaries without having to come into North Herts. Green Belt. If they were in such a great need of housing why did they not utilize the Vauxhall site, on which they are currently building, for well over 10 years or more. Why are they building a night club and other buildings instead of housing? These buildings should surely be built on the empty site next to the new hotel and the Parkway Railroad Station across the road from the Vauxhall site which would not be appropriate for housing.

The West of Luton is certainly a much better place to build the homes with promised infrastructure and adjacent roads to the M1, Luton Airport and the Town. The developer promised a large food store, schools and park if given permission to build. It is not of such outstanding natural beauty compared to that of the East Luton. It is much flatter too. Luton should be made to use this land rather than Hertfordshire's.

The roads infrastructure is totally incapable of supporting a massive increase in vehicle movements which will occur daily. Roads into Luton, Luton Airport, and access to the M1, are already gridlocked at critical times of the day, with a knock-on effect to the surrounding area. The increased volume of vehicles moving in and out of the site, cars, heavy lorries would have a devastating impact for the local residents going about their everyday lives. The lanes adjacent to the site, in North Hertfordshire, were designed for "horse and cart", and are totally unsuitable for the proposed traffic increased numbers. The existing roads are in continuous disrepair. The county currently has difficulty maintaining them so it would find it impossible to cope with even more. Any traffic not needing to go through Luton would undoubtedly go through our North Hertfordshire villages. Some villagers, like those in Breachwood Green, do not have pavements in front of their homes and have to step straight onto the road. Existing traffic tends to travel too fast through the village and any increase in this traffic would compound this health and safety hazard.

I understand that Traffic Survey for this proposal was not carried out to industry standards e.g. 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 and hasn't been proposed.

Add to this the proposed doubling of the flights at Luton airport and the increase traffic and noise that will bring will certainly enhanced the nightmare! Before any additional housing is built, the planners and the public need to be told just how many near misses have occurred around the airport and surrounding area within the last ten years. New housing, as well as established homes, within the vicinity of the airport will be adversely affected by air and noise pollution as the airport continues to expand. Luton airport is planned to grow to 22 million passengers by 2030 which will stretch the road network in Luton and North Hertfordshire to breaking point. On top of this, I understand that even the most recent growth in traffic has not been taken into account in the traffic surveys carried out which leaves them completely inaccurate.

Our beautiful Green Belt land is graded as "of special significant landscape value". It is in line with Government intentions that "settlements shall not coalesce", and provides an important "buffer" between Luton and the much- loved Hertfordshire countryside. What about the wild life? The owls and kites for example and all the small insects, bees, butterflies etc. There are many small wooded areas within the proposed housing site that would be destroyed. We need these trees for oxygen and woodland habitats. The expansion of housing in North Hertfordshire and of Luton Airport is also going to create further stress on the area's natural environment. The Council needs to be looking to place more trees around the East of Luton/North Hertfordshire in order to absorb the pollution sprayed out from the huge increase in vehicular and air traffic. It should not be taking trees, bushes and green land away! There are a huge number of tree preservation orders covering sites LE1, LE2 and LE3, there are a total of 18,381 metres of tree preservation orders (Ref: "4._planning_constraints_matrix.pdf" document at http://www.north-herts.gov.uk/4._planning_constraints_matrix.pdf). This countryside provides a vital social and leisure area, enjoyed by Lutonians, local residents, and visitors from further afield, providing walking, bird watching, cycling, horse riding, and countless other leisure activities, in tranquillity rarely experienced so close to a busy industrial town. Surely, greenbelt cannot be built on to meet unmet needs.

The possibility of 2000+ homes will put an intolerable strain on already overcrowded schools. Despite the promise of a modest primary school, there will still be an insatiable demand for schooling, especially at the already over-subscribed secondary schools. Medical centres, pharmacies, access to hospitals, emergency services, public transport, and policing is already under strain. I understand that the L and D is already growing at 6% per annum without this development. No adequate provision is proposed to ease these. Indeed, we are facing constant "cut-backs" in essential services.

I understand that this area has sites of Archaeological and Historical Significance that Luton and Hertfordshire have not considered.

I believe that there has been a breach of the planning process because the developers haven't consulted the local populous in this application. We have been told that the objections from previous applications do not count against this planning proposal so how can it be right that the planners can use consultations from a previous proposal.

Luton Borough Council should be made to submit a thorough Local Plan that takes account of all the concerns of the residents of North Hertfordshire and East Luton and that the Government as a whole and in particular the pertinent Governmental planning department and its minister should be made aware of our concerns.

PLEASE REFUSE THIS APPLICATION ADDITIONALLY, AND FURTHERMORE ...

PLEASE ACCEPT THIS AS A FORMAL OBJECTION TO ANY PROPOSAL, OR SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION, TO DEVELOP LAND ON THIS SITE OR ANY OTHER SITE ADJACENT TO LUTON'S EASTERN BOUNDARY WITH NORTH HERTS., COCKERNHOE, MANGROVE, TEA GREEN & WANDON END, etc.

I wish to "participate in all examination stages and change parts of the plan". "I object to the NHDC Local Plan 2011-2031. I want to change many parts of this Local Plan. I want to participate in the Examination."

I 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 -
Reuse existing housing rather than just build new.

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 -
Destroying wildlife and natural habitats

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 local area currently supports the population through schools, doctors, roads ,shopping etc. Increasing this by the amount of houses proposed is ridiculous. Not only will greenbelt countryside be lost which is used to support a healthy lifestyle and educate our children but the traffic will increase causing congestion and pollution. Local services will also be under too much pressure. I already have to wait two weeks to get a doctors appointment and the local schools are already oversubscribed.

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 -
It's green belt land and the existing infrastructure will not support this development

I am writing to object to this plan, particularly in that there is green belt land around Cockernhoe and Lilley, that would be destroyed, in this plan. The current application does not meet the "very special circumstances "to use this green belt.

There is already congestion on the roads going in to Luton, for people living in the Wigmore, Cockernhoe, Copthorne area. I have been commuting into London for over 14 years and have seen my car journey to Luton Airport parkway take longer and longer due to increased congestion on the roads. All routes to Parkway station are equally bad. The 3.9 mile journey should take no more than 10-15 minutes, but in fact can take up to 25 minutes in the morning. Your plans to add more housing in our area will only lead to a massive increase in congestion on the major routes to Luton Town, the railway station and to the Motorway.

There are not enough roads to deal with the current demand. These new houses will just add to the congestion. There are already 205 dwellings around Cockernhoe, Mangrove and Tea Green. 2100 new homes would increase this by 1124%.

There are many brown field sites in Luton, that could be developed to meet the housing needs, e.g. The old site across the road from St. Mary's church (Power Court).

We are trying to encourage society to become healthier and fitter, yet this will destroy areas for them to cycle, walk and enjoy. Being a keen amateur photographer, I cherish the natural beauty of the countryside in and around Cockernhoe. Your proposed development will forever destroy this wonderful rural landscape.

I would like to register my objections to the NHDC plans to develop green belt land to the east of Luton.
Development of this land on the Herts border will undoubtably have a huge detrimental effect on the surrounding villages but the main impact will be on the local roads around the Wigmore area. The planned link road to Lilley will not provide any relief for the local residents already dealing with the inadequate gridlocked roads into the town centre.
Luton has a number of brownfield sites which have been left undeveloped for many years. If housing needs were so strong why was the Vauxhall site left barren for so many years?
I believe our limited routes into the town centre should already be acknowledged as having reached saturation point and for that reason alone an estate of over 2000 homes will place an unacceptable burden on the local community.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wish to lodge an official OBJECTION, in the STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS, against the proposals to build houses on Green Belt land to the east of Luton.

*** The development would create UNBEARABLE CHAOS upon roads in the area, and bring them to a complete, gridlocked standstill.***

***The land is already classified as Green Belt, and the plan does not fit the Government's criteria to remove it from this status.

***Sufficient Brown Field Land is available within Luton's boundaries to build 2,000 houses at the same density as is proposed within the local plan.***

***The development would create an unbearable pressure upon the area's already vastly over subscribed facilities,
such as Schools, Doctor's Surgeries, Health Centres, Hospitals, Post Offices, Shops and Supermarkets.***

***Loss of wildlife habitat, and the PERMANENT LOSS of this spectacularly beautiful countryside, both as an asset and as amenity will be DESTROYED FOREVER!!!***

I BEG YOU PLEASE TO THINK AGAIN AND THROW OUT THIS STUPID, BADLY THOUGHT OUT PLAN, BEFORE IT CREATES
PERMANENT AND IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE TO THE AREA. IT WILL MOST CERTAINLY MAKE LIFE COMPLETELY UNBEARABLE FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE SURROUNDING AREA AND VILLAGES.

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

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

This will impact all of Luton; Wigmore, Stopsley, Eaton Green, and even Round Green, Stockingstone Road, and even the over-stretched Luton and Dunstable Hospital! Trying to leave the Wigmore area during rush hour is totally frustrating - long queues down Eaton Green Road and through the airport, long queues into Luton either from the A505 from Hitchin or any other road into the town centre. Then the same problems at night with people trying to get home. The whole area is totally congested already before any proposed houses are built which would impact massively on the whole area.

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

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

Both LBC and NHDC have noted concerns over lack of necessary infrastructure and inadequate road networks due to the already existent congestion.
The Plan is not deliverable if the basic required infrastructure and transportation access has not been delivered also.
If you consider that Cockernhoe is 50 houses, the expansion threat is a huge 4,200 per cent!! This is disproportionate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The unmet housing need figure also shows inaccuracies. During Executive Meetings LBC stated the need for a collaboration between neighbouring councils to commission another Strategic Housing Management Assessment to re-examine once more the Unmet Housing Need figure assumptions, due to their estimated nature but far-reaching consequences and drastic impact upon the area. Luton's unmet housing need figure is based on migration statistics. The Plan does not consider how Brexit will affect these either.
I live in Stopsley and have seen this lovely village change drastically over the last few years; it is no longer a village but just part of Luton. I don't want to see the same thing happening to Cockernhoe and Wigmore. I belong to the Luton U3A Ramblers and Amblers Group and we often organise walks across to Cockernhoe which we shall sadly miss if this Green Belt Land is built upon.
So consider this written address that I wish to change the Local Plan and participate in the Examination.

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

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

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

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

I strongly object to the NHDC Local Plan 2011-2031.
Infrastructure and transportation networks are inadequately addressed in the parts of the plan relating sites East of Luton, to meet Luton's Unmet Housing Need East of Luton. I object that there is no justifiable need to declassify Land East of Luton from the Green Belt. There are many viable alternatives, so the Local Plan is not in accordance with the National Framework Planning Policy since it is not "absolutely necessary." I wish to change this plan. I want to participate in the Examination.
This will impact all of Luton; Wigmore, Stopsley, Eaton Green, and even Round Green, Stockingstone Road, and even the over-stretched Luton and Dunstable Hospital!
Building 2,105 upwards houses will lead to unacceptable problematic congestion consequences for this area, especially in the light of the airport's vast expansion which planned simultaneously for this side of town. Air quality and pollution has not be assessed in the residential areas around the airport.
The Transport Assessments were not robust. The their data was inadequate and inaccurate; they did not include impacts of all new developments in the vicinity, they were not carried out for long enough, and some studies from Luton Borough Council assumed roads that did not even exist. Traffic congestion in Wigmore is unacceptable levels.
Both LBC and NHDC have noted concerns over lack of necessary infrastructure and inadequate road networks due to the already existent congestion.
The Plan is not deliverable if the basic required infrastructure and transportation access has not been delivered also.
If you consider that Cockernhoe is 50 houses, the expansion threat is a huge 4,200 per cent!! This is disproportionate.
Wigmore currently consists of about 4,500 houses, so this proposal is an unacceptably disproportionate level of expansion on that side too. 2105 houses is like taking half the size of the entire Wigmore Area, and sticking it onto the side all over again.
Therefore logic would dictate that all other infrastructure must also be matched by an expansion of 50 per cent too - so half of every public service available in Wigmore; ranging from shops and retail outlets, car parks, secondary and primary schools, petrol stations, policing services, fire services, health services, dental services must all be also expanded to that same degree. Where will the money for all this come from? The developers will not be paying for any of it.
Cockernhoe Village will no longer even exist. It would destroy an entire rural community and displace a village. It would change the character of the area to an unacceptable degree.
There have been no mitigating solutions to the air and noise pollution that will be generated from the extra cars, or the airport expansion in this area.
The unmet housing need figure also shows inaccuracies. During Executive Meetings LBC stated the need for a collaboration between neighbouring councils to commission another Strategic Housing Management Assessment to re-examine once more the Unmet Housing Need figure assumptions, due to their estimated nature but far-reaching consequences and drastic impact upon the area. Luton's unmet housing need figure is based on migration statistics. The Plan does not consider how Brexit will affect these either.
So consider this written address that I wish to change the Local Plan and participate in the Examination.

I wish to place on record my objections as detailed below to the North Herts District Local Plan 2011-2031 in respect of two proposed developments to the east of Luton;

1. Green Belt Status
Removal of the Green Belt Status to accommodate the NHDC Local Plan does not meet the governments criteria of "Except in exceptional circumstances" as Luton's unmet housing needs can be achieved by untilising a number of brown field sites in and around the area, for example the vacant builders yard off Kingsway Road in Luton and along the Hatters Way corridor.

The removal of the "Green Belt Status" sets a precedent for concreting over the countryside by greedy developers. How are we going to produce sufficient food for a growing population when the country is covered east to west and north to south in concrete, bricks and mortar?

2. Road Network Infrastructure
The road network infrastructure is no where near sufficient to support the additional traffic for construction work with heavy goods vehicles and other commercial vehicles. Both Eaton Green Road and Crawley Green Road and Wigmore Lane are already grid locked for long periods of the day due to airport traffic, school traffic and traffic into and out of the Asda store and the shopping precinct.

Including the proposed Bloor Homes development between Cockernhoe and Tea Green, over 2000 homes will be built. Based on the average home on the average housing estate, each home will have 2 cars per household and this represents at least an additional 4000 vehicles using Crawley Green Road, Eaton Green Road and Wigmore Lane. In particular there are 2 schools in the area, a new school, recently completed in Crawley Green Road between the roundabout junction with Wigmore Lane and Cockernhoe and also Wigmore Primary School adjacent to Crawley Green Road. The crossing point for pedestrians in Crawley Green Road at the roundabout Junction with Wigmore Lane on the Cockenhoe side of the roundabout is an ACCIDENT BLACK SPOT waiting to happen. Pedestians such as school children with parents and shoppers walking to and from Asda are at serious risk of injury from traffic travelling along Wigmore Lane from Stopsley Village and turning left at the roundabout towards Cockernhoe as this is a blind corner. Traffic accelerates fast around this corner when the drivers notices a gap in the queue after being frustrated by queuing for a long period of time in standing traffic.

Should common sense and decency not prevail and these developments are given the go ahead then major link roads such as a route out towards the A505 at the junction with Lilley must be built PRIOR to the commencement of any work on the housing development at Cockernhoe and the Bloor Homes development between Cockernhoe and Tea Green. It is not acceptable to say that a link road will be built sometime in the future after the developments have been built as no doubt the excuses of financial constraints will be used to avoid completion of the project.

Such as it is, Crawley Green Road, Eaton Green Road and Wigmore Lane CANNOT support the volume of traffic from the proposed developments which will include visitors, service agents and deliveries as well as the 4000 plus vehicles of the home owners.

3. Village Status
The quantity of homes that are proposed for developments at Cockernhoe and the Bloor Homes proposal between Cockernhoe and Tea Green is way out of proportion compared to the number of homes that already exist in these villages. These villages will completely loose their identity as villages in a rural setting and will be swamped by modern developments connected to the sprawling mass of a suburban estate that is Luton.

I want to participate in the examination stages for the above plan, and wish to change parts of it. Pre-submission/regulation19.
The plan states that 1950 homes on sites E1/2 & 3, are for Luton's unmet needs. Luton has enough brownfield sites, among them Dallow Rd, Crescent Rd, and the Bushwood site alone could hold over 4000 homes. There is no need for this development. NHDC has the West of Stevenage site, sufficient for thousands of homes, that they are holding back for 2060 and beyond, that's illogical. All of these sites have the infrastructure already in place to support development, sites E1/2 &3, have no infrastructure.
Removing E1/2&3 from the green belt is not an exceptional circumstances and would remove part of the Lungs of Luton. We need this to stay Green Belt to help overcome the pollution we already get from Luton Airport, and it will get worse because of airport development that is already underway.
There is no infrastructure in place to support this development, and even a relief road around the area to the A505 will do nothing to help the congestion from this site, as residents would need to go into Luton town centre for Doctors, Dentists, shopping etc.
The nearest Hospital, Police, Fire Brigade and Ambulance are all in Luton, along with Doctors and Dentists and Schools, they are already overstretched, and could not cope with a further 4000+ residents. So further resources would be needed, and as this area comes under NHDC, there would be no precepts coming from the residents of this area to fund this. This development is not viable.

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

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

This will impact all of Luton; Wigmore, Stopsley, Eaton Green, and even Round Green, Stockingstone Road, and even the over-stretched Luton and Dunstable Hospital which is already at complete breaking point, if you are in doubt try visiting A&E on any night of the week and see how long it takes to be seen. This is in no way shape or form a reflection of the abilities of the medical staff at the hospital more an example of what a utterly ridiculous proposal this is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to register my objections to the proposed building of new homes in Cockernhoe, Mangrove area. The proposal of building over 2000 new homes is horrendous, please consider this green belt area which will be lost. There brown field sites in Luton that are far more suitable. This will leave this land unprotected And open to applications from developers.the infrastructure in this area is not capable of coping with the extra traffic, our local schools will be unable to cope with increased numbers .please listen to our many concerns and reconsider this terrible plan.