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

Showing comments and forms 301 to 330 of 749

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3083

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Verity A Paylor

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 - EL1, EL2 and EL3:
- Building on the Green Belt
- Brownfield Sites
- Health facilities at capacity
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Air quality and pollution from Luton airport
- Transport Assessments
- The Plan is not deliverable
- Community infrastructure
- Scale of development
- Public services
- Village Character and heritage
- Air and noise pollution
- Housing assessment
- Brexit

Full text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3084

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Mr M J Paylor

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 and EL3):
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Luton's Unmet Housing Need East of Luton.
- Transport Assessments
- Loss of Green Belt
- Not in accordance with the National Framework Planning Policy
- Scale of development
- Light, air and noise pollution
- Luton airport Extension
- Loss of Village and Landscape character
- Infrastructure to match growth (healthcare, retail and leisure, emergency services)
- Strategic Housing Management Assessment
- Brownfield Sites
- Developer contributions
- Brexit

Full text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3085

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Ms Diane Bremner

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 - EL1, EL2 and EL3:
- Building on the Green Belt
- Brownfield Sites
- Health facilities at capacity
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Air quality and pollution from Luton airport
- Transport Assessments
- The Plan is not deliverable
- Community infrastructure
- Scale of development
- Public services
- Village Character and heritage
- Air and noise pollution
- Housing assessment
- Brexit

Full text:

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.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3086

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Derek Bremner

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 - EL1, EL2 and EL3:
- Building on the Green Belt
- Brownfield Sites
- Health facilities at capacity
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Air quality and pollution from Luton airport
- Transport Assessments
- The Plan is not deliverable
- Community infrastructure
- Scale of development
- Public services
- Village Character and heritage
- Air and noise pollution
- Housing assessment
- Brexit

Full text:

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.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3089

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Ms Holly Carroll

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 - EL1, EL2 and EL3:
- Building on the Green Belt
- Brownfield Sites
- Health facilities at capacity
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Air quality and pollution from Luton airport
- Transport Assessments
- The Plan is not deliverable
- Community infrastructure
- Scale of development
- Public services
- Village Character and heritage
- Air and noise pollution
- Housing assessment
- Brexit

Full text:

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.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3092

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Daniel Pymont

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 - EL1, EL2 and EL3:
- Building on the Green Belt
- Brownfield Sites
- Health facilities at capacity
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Air quality and pollution from Luton airport
- Transport Assessments
- The Plan is not deliverable
- Community infrastructure
- Scale of development
- Public services
- Village Character and heritage
- Air and noise pollution
- Housing assessment
- Brexit

Full text:

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.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3093

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Victoria Pymont

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 and EL3):
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Luton's Unmet Housing Need East of Luton.
- Transport Assessments
- Loss of Green Belt
- Not in accordance with the National Framework Planning Policy
- Scale of development
- Light, air and noise pollution
- Luton airport Extension
- Loss of Village and Landscape Character
- Infrastructure to match growth (healthcare, retail and leisure, emergency services)
- Strategic Housing Management Assessment
- Brownfield Sites
- Developer contributions
- Brexit

Full text:

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.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3094

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Karl Bottrill

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3):
- Infrastructure and transportation
- Luton's unmet housing need
- Transport Assessment
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Green Belt
- Not in accordance with the NPPF
- Air quality and noise pollution
- Scale of development
- Village Character
- Healthcare and education services
- Developer contributions
- Strategic Housing Management Assessment
- Available Brownfield Sites

Full text:

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

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3096

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Jo Bottrill

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3):
- Infrastructure and transportation
- Luton's unmet housing need
- Transport Assessment
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Green Belt
- Not in accordance with the NPPF
- Air quality and noise pollution
- Scale of development
- Village Character
- Healthcare and education services
- Developer contributions
- Strategic Housing Management Assessment
- Available Brownfield Sites

Full text:

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.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3097

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Ms Rachel Burns

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 and EL3):
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Infrastructure to match growth (healthcare, retail and leisure, emergency services)
- Luton's Unmet Housing Need East of Luton.
- Loss of Green Belt
- Not in accordance with the National Framework Planning Policy
- Scale of development
- Air and noise pollution
- Transport Assessments
- Development contributions
- Loss of Village and Landscape character
- Strategic Housing Management Assessment
- Brexit

Full text:

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.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3098

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Mark Burns

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 and EL3):
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Infrastructure to match growth (healthcare, education facilities, retail and leisure, emergency services)
- Luton's Unmet Housing Need East of Luton.
- Loss of Green Belt
- Not in accordance with the National Framework Planning Policy
- Scale of development
- Air and noise pollution
- Transport Assessments
- Development contributions
- Loss of Village and Landscape character
- Strategic Housing Management Assessment
- Brexit

Full text:

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.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3099

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Ms Sarah Cashin

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 and EL3):
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Infrastructure to match growth (healthcare, education facilities, retail and leisure, emergency services)
- Luton's Unmet Housing Need East of Luton.
- Loss of Green Belt
- Not in accordance with the National Framework Planning Policy
- Scale of development
- Air and noise pollution
- Transport Assessments
- Development contributions
- Loss of Village and Landscape character
- Strategic Housing Management Assessment
- Brexit

Full text:

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. 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.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3100

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Ms Joanne Merry

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 and EL3):
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Infrastructure to match growth (healthcare, education facilities, retail and leisure, emergency services)
- Luton's Unmet Housing Need East of Luton.
- Loss of Green Belt
- Not in accordance with the National Framework Planning Policy
- Scale of development
- Air and noise pollution
- Transport Assessments
- Development contributions
- Loss of Village and Landscape character
- Strategic Housing Management Assessment
- Brexit

Full text:

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.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3101

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Ms Debbie Wilson

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 and EL3):
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Infrastructure to match growth (healthcare, education facilities, retail and leisure, emergency services)
- Luton's Unmet Housing Need East of Luton.
- Loss of Green Belt
- Not in accordance with the National Framework Planning Policy
- Scale of development
- Air and noise pollution
- Transport Assessments
- Development contributions
- Loss of Village and Landscape character
- Strategic Housing Management Assessment
- Brexit

Full text:

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.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3102

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Ms Diane Moulster

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 and EL3):
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Infrastructure to match growth (healthcare, education facilities, retail and leisure, emergency services)
- Luton's Unmet Housing Need East of Luton.
- Loss of Green Belt
- Not in accordance with the National Framework Planning Policy
- Scale of development
- Air and noise pollution
- Transport Assessments
- Development contributions
- Loss of Village and Landscape character
- Strategic Housing Management Assessment
- Brexit

Full text:

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

Firstly, with regard to "Removing this land from Green Belt status to meet 'Luton's Unment Need". The National Planning Policy Framework document states that the Removal of Green Belt Status does not fit the Government's criteria of "Except in exceptional circumstances." Luton's Unmet Need is not an exceptional circumstance. It also states: "an Unmet Need is unlikely to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt unless there are very Special Circumstances."

There are already sufficient undeveloped Brown field sites in Luton to meet its Unmet Needs.

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 in order to re-examine once more the Unmet Housing Need figure assumptions. This was due to their estimated nature, with 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.

The removal of this land from Green Belt Status as proposed by NHDC in their plan leaves this land unprotected and open to applications from developers.

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 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. Furthermore, Luton Borough Council base their traffic modelling on an unbuilt link road to the A505 at Lilley. A Freedom of Information request states: "This transport modelling includes the alignment of the proposed spine road through that development site and LBC have also assumed by 2031 that will be extended at its northern end to join the A505 near its junction with the road into Lilley". However, NHDC state on P27 of the NDHC Local Plan Para 4.222 - "Our assessments show that this level of development can be accommodated without a significant adverse impact on the wider highway networks of Luton and Hertfordshire".

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. In fact, the whole proposal is out of proportion. 2,100 homes is 14% of the total allocation of houses in the NHDC Local Plan; a 1,025% increase on the 205 houses in the three hamlets placing these - and the houses in Wigmore bordering the development - into the middle of an estate. With respect to Wigmore on its own, currently around 4,500 houses, again this proposal is at an unacceptably disproportionate level of expansion since 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.

Finally I mention the impact on wildlife. There are areas of woodland containing Bluebells - a protected plant species. There are Red Kites in the area - a protected bird species.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3103

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Ms Carla Juddemi

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 and EL3):
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Infrastructure to match growth (healthcare, education facilities, retail and leisure, emergency services)
- Luton's Unmet Housing Need East of Luton.
- Loss of Green Belt
- Not in accordance with the National Framework Planning Policy
- Scale of development
- Air and noise pollution
- Transport Assessments
- Development contributions
- Loss of Village and Landscape character
- Strategic Housing Management Assessment
- Brexit

Full text:

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.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3105

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Ms Laura Kirk

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 and EL3):
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Infrastructure to match growth (healthcare, education facilities, retail and leisure, emergency services)
- Luton's Unmet Housing Need East of Luton.
- Loss of Green Belt
- Not in accordance with the National Framework Planning Policy
- Scale of development
- Air and noise pollution
- Transport Assessments
- Development contributions
- Loss of Village and Landscape character
- Strategic Housing Management Assessment
- Brexit

Full text:

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.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3106

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Ms Angela ALABSI

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 and EL3):
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Infrastructure to match growth (healthcare, education facilities, retail and leisure, emergency services)
- Luton's Unmet Housing Need East of Luton
- Loss of Green Belt
- Not in accordance with the National Framework Planning Policy
- Scale of development
- Air and noise pollution
- Transport Assessments
- Development contributions
- Loss of Village and Landscape character
- Strategic Housing Management Assessment
- Brexit

Full text:

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.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3107

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Anthony Baillie

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 - EL1, EL2 and EL3:
- Building on Greenbelt
- Biodiversity, wildlife, flora.
- Brownfield land
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- The local facilities (schools, healthcare, shops) are at capcity
- If a link road was to be built to service these proposals this would destroy even more Green Belt land.

Full text:

We Object to the proposed plan to build estates in the area around Cockernhoe Village and Wigmore Estate.
This area is designated Green Belt land and does not fit in with governments criteria of "Except in exceptional circumstances".
The building of these estates would have dramatic effects on the wild life and flora and destroy a valuable recreational area.
Luton's unmet housing needs can readily be met by all the Brown Field sites within Luton.
There is no easy access to the proposed sites, even today there is road Gridlock during peak times in the surrounding areas taking long journey times to get to work places.
The local facilities, schools, medical centres, shops, could not cope with the proposed increase as these are already working to full capacity.
If a link road was to be built to service these proposals this would destroy even more Green Belt land.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3109

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Martin and Sue Donoghue

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 - EL1, EL2 and EL3
- Building on Greenbelt Land
- Forestry and agriculture
- Habitats to wildlife
- Brownfield sites
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Impact on village character and heritage

Full text:

I would like to register my total disagreement with plans to build up to 2100 houses on land East of Luton, the proposal is completely out of proportion to concentrate this many houses next to an area which has already expanded significantly over the last few years and is now already densely populated. This is an area of Green Belt land and allocated that status as per this definition "The main purpose of the green belt policy is to protect the land around larger urban centres from urban sprawl, and maintain the designated area for forestry and agriculture as well as to provide habitat to wildlife. Green belt offers a number of benefits for both urban and rural population"

In my opinion, this objection is substantiated based on the following reasons:

- There are a significant number of Brown field sites in Luton to meet the needs of this housing shortage.

- The current infrastructure of roads and schools is already overloaded. I live in Rylands Heath and my current journey to the M1 each day is now taking 3 times what it used to take, five years ago, with constant bottlenecks on Eaton Green road, Crawley Green road and areas around the airport. I have no doubt, increasing the housing in this area will only compound the problem. Please try these routes yourselves during peak times.

- This Green Belt land, with "village life" is extremely important to the relaxation and "stress busting" of modern life, to be able to wander a few minutes from home and enjoy the countryside. Allowing this development will thrust most of Wigmore into one huge residential estate, taking away the advantages of living close to nature.

I hope you take these points into consideration and implore you not to agree to this development.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3116

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Chris J Burkitt

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 - EL1, EL2 and EL3:
- Building on the Green Belt
- Alternative site
- Scale of development
- Heritage
- Landscape and Village Character
- Highway infrastructure and congestion

Full text:

I don't believe that sacrificing green belt land in Hertfordshire east of Luton to accommodate the building of more houses can be justified when there are many sites within Luton boundaries that could be used.
For example, the proposed Power Court development in the centre of Luton, although containing some apartments, is predominantly a football stadium and additional retail outlets. This could be redesigned to contain thousands of houses which would benefit from being central and eliminate much car commuting. If protected land is to be sacrificed it should be Stockwood Park which is within the Luton boundary, not beautiful green belt land outside of the boundary.

The proposed development totally swamps three small villages which are part of England's heritage and should not have their character destroyed. Access into central Luton, Hitchin and Stevenage from this area is already congested at peak commuting times, the addition of more vehicles would obviously make it much worse, yet another reason for building within the Luton boundary.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3117

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Ms Patricia Sloley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 - EL1, EL2 and EL3:
- Building on the Green Belt
- Use of brownfield sites
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Scale of development

Full text:

My objections to the NHDC local plan for building to the East of Luton.

Luton's unmet needs do not warrant removing green belt status from the area as they are not an exceptional circumstance according to the Government's own criteria

Making the area unprotected will cause other developers to build over all of it. All of it will be gone forever.

We should use Luton's existing brownfield sites to accommodate all of its unmet housing needs. The town really needs more housing and development to turn around this already fragmenting community. Approving building on green belt will make existing brown sites less attractive to developers and so far less likely they will build on it . There are already many brown sites available and there have been for some time.
Building on greenbelt is all about developer's profit, not housing need.

The green belt development would further congest already congested roads in East Luton. The hinted at link road that doesn't exist, doesn't have planning permission and may never be built.

2000 homes built around an existing 200 is disproportionate.

It is not right to put 14% of the NHDC total allocation in this one area.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3118

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Edward Sloley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 - EL1, EL2 and EL3:
- Building on the Green Belt
- Use of brownfield sites
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Scale of development

Full text:

I object to building plans to the East of Luton.

The Government's criteria say Luton's unmet needs do not warrant removing green belt status from the area as they are not an exceptional circumstance

If the area becomes unprotected we know that every square metre of it will be built on creating a suburban sprawl

Luton already has enough brownfield sites to accommodate all of its unmet housing needs and the town really needs more housing and development to bring it back from a fragmenting community. Allowing building on the green belt will make it much less likely that developers will make the effort to build in the town. We know that because many brown sites are already available and there are few developers interested. Perhaps because its not as profitable as green belt developments.

The green belt development would dump much more traffic into already congested roads in East Luton. There is some talk of a possible link road, but that doesn't exist, doesn't have planning permission and quite possibly will never be built

Building 2000 or more homes around the current 200 or so already established there is disproportionate and will create a vast out of town estate over them.

It is not reasonable to put 14% of the NHDC total allocation in this one vast sprawl.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3119

Received: 27/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Philip Bransgrove

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 - EL1, EL2 and EL3:
- Landscape character
- Wildlife and biodiversity
- Highway infrastructure and congestion

Full text:

I wish to 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, and its surrounding areas.

There are, perhaps, few new arguments that I can put, that have not already been put by my neighbours.

However, I wish to point out that the area, looking to be built on, is an area of great beauty which, I have no doubt, contains much wildlife that would be needlessly displaced.

I also wish to make you aware of the, for want of a better word, mayhem, that affects the roads around the area, every morning. This problem would be exasperated tenfold.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3120

Received: 27/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Dipa Michalik

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 - EL1, EL2 and EL3:
- Building on the Green Belt
- Highway infrastructure, safety and congestion
- Scale of development
- Brownfield sites
- Community health

Full text:

We go to Cockernhoe regularly and are very concerned about the proposed plans.
The lovely green belt land around Cockernhoe and Lilley would surely be destroyed by 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 and on the way to the airport. People living in the Wigmore and Cockernhoe area already suffer congestion going in and out of Luton.
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%. We are already seeing the impact with the housing that came up in the last building phase .
It makes more sense to use brownfield sites before green belt .
There are many brownfield 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.
We are trying to encourage society to become healthier and fitter, yet this will destroy areas for them to cycle, walk and enjoy less congested and hopefully safer roads!

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3127

Received: 27/11/2016

Respondent: Ms Debbie Chillingworth

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 - EL1, EL2 and EL3:
- Building on the Green Belt
- Wildlife and biodiversity
- Brownfield sites

Full text:

I would like to object to the Local Plan 2011-2031.

Land with Green Belt Status should not be re-designated. It opens the land up for unnecessary development having a detrimental effect on wild life.

It is my understanding that there is sufficient undeveloped Brown Field sites that would cover 'Luton's unmet need' without allowing developers access to land designated Green Belt Status.

Brown Filed Sites with more suitable infrastructures already in place to support an additional 2,100 homes, should be considered.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3128

Received: 27/11/2016

Respondent: Dr Kuldip Sule

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 - EL1, EL2 and EL3:
- Building on the Green Belt
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Brownfield sites
- Healthy communities
- Pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure

Full text:

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.
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 by 1124%.There is many brownfield 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.
We are trying to encourage society to become healthier and fitter, yet this will destroy areas for them to cycle, walk and enjoy.

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3130

Received: 27/11/2016

Respondent: Ms Janet Rance

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Objection to SP19 on the grounds of:
- road structure: traffic, routes into Luton
- impact on Bedfordshire residents and Bedfordshire would have to provide schooling and medical needs
- use brown fill sites not green belt.

Full text:

I would like to object to the following planning permission as I have lived in this area for 31 years.
1. The road structure can't take any more traffic without being a bypass around the in area in Hertfordshire to meet the m1

2. It will be Bedfordshire that will have to provide Schooling and Medical needs

3. There are only three main routes into Luton and these cant cope with traffic at present with out the additional housing.

4. It's Bedfordshire residence that will suffer not Hertfordshire.

5. We should make the use of brown fill sites not green belt.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3131

Received: 27/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Paul Fisher

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 - EL1, EL2 and EL3:
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Luton Airport traffic
- Education facilities
- Current retail/leisure facilities
- Car parking
- New super store
- Brownfield sites
- Affordable housing
- Traffic assessments
- Council tax
- Building on the Green Belt
- Using Green Belt land efficiently

Full text:

I have an objection to the development in the area identified as for Cockernhoe and East of Luton based on the following points and observations;

* Assuming a number of the new residents would either work in Luton or need to use the M1 to commute there would be increased congestion on the local access roads (esp. Crawley Green Road and Eaton Green Road), particularly at peak times when the roads are already heavily utilised. It is stated that access into Luton will be improved in conjunction with Luton Borough Council but the scope for improving main routes into and out of Luton from the new housing area are limited as they pass through areas that are already fully developed and built up to the road corridors.
* Traffic to and from junction 10/10a on the M1 at peak times is also currently subject to delays and queuing and this would be exacerbated by additional traffic from the development. Ironically, the work to 'improve' junction 10a has only increased the problem as traffic is able to move more rapidly from the M1 along the A505 to the area where it intersects Crawley Green Road and Eaton Green Road. The airport operator is already under the misapprehension that the junction 10a redesign will improve access to the airport, even though it still reduces to one lane on the new approach to the airport. This fact, and the proposed increase in airport traffic from 12m to 18m passengers per annum, can only result in an increase in congestion to which the proposed housing will only add
* The new development would have to rely upon existing secondary education facilities in the east of Luton, all of which are either at capacity or planned to take the forecast increased demand for secondary education from within the existing Luton area. Any traffic associated with taking pupils to and from these schools would add to the congestion on the local road network, as described above. The same argument can be applied to other facilities such as sports and leisure facilities, doctors'/dentists' surgeries and in particular the Luton and Dunstable hospital that would start receiving patients that might otherwise have gone to hospitals in Stevenage and Hatfield
* The new development has only local centre sized shopping facilities planned. The nearest store able to serve the new residents with a wide range of products is Asda on Wigmore Lane. This is currently operating at capacity, both in terms of store size and car parking and is the cause of some road congestion at busy times. There is no potential for this store to increase in size or for there to be improvements to its infrastructure to support its use by additional customers. Should a new 'superstore' be offered in the new development it would be so close to the existing Wigmore lane local centre that it would impact the Wigmore lane centre's trade and potentially draw customers from further west within Luton and east from Hertfordshire, increasing traffic through the Wigmore area and on the rural roads and lanes to the east of the new development area.
* It is stated that the proposal is to meet Luton's future needs. Why is NHDC concerning itself with Luton's future housing needs when there is existing brownfield land and potential greenfield development land within Luton Borough Council's existing boundaries? Will the affordable housing in the development be made available exclusively to meet Luton's requirements? If not and NHDC still 'reserves' an amount of the allocation to meets its need the residents could have to travel to centres of employment such as Hitchin and Stevenage further increasing traffic attempting to get on the A505 or travelling through the narrow country lanes directly to the east. I understand that traffic modelling of this effect assumes the existence of roads that have yet to be constructed.
* It is not clear to which authority Council Tax would be due. If not to Luton, how would the additional costs of the development for such things as waste collection, road maintenance, fire service cover, etc be covered?
* The proposal is in Green Belt land and I have seen reference in the development documentation of it refers to its 'efficient use'. I believe the context of this efficiency is in the low density of development and the visual amenity built into the layout. Another interpretation of efficiency is that the use of Green Belt land should be minimised and the density of development increased to reduce the Green Belt area required. In this context the proposed development is highly inefficient.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3132

Received: 27/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Steven Lovelock

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 - EL1, EL2 and EL3
- The local infrastructure
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Education facilities
- Building on the Green Belt
- Scale of development

Full text:

I wish to object to the Proposed Submission Local Plan 2011-2031 on the following basis:

* The local infrastructure is/would be unable to cope with the increase in population if the plans were to go ahead.
* The roads ie A505 would be unable to handle the increase volume of traffic, even with the proposed plans.
* Local schools would not be able to cope with the increased population, even with the proposed plans, which are still insufficient.
* The land is green belt land and should be protected.
* The proposal is completely out of proportion. 2,100 homes is 14% of the total allocation of houses in the NHDC Local Plan, a 1,025% increase on the 205 houses in the three hamlets, placing these and the houses in Wigmore bordering the development into the middle of an estate.

Please consider these viewpoints.