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

I object to the plan building to the East of Luton because:

1. Luton's unmet needs are not an exceptional circumstance according to the Governments criteria and do not warrant removing green belt protection from the lands in question

2. Once unprotected we can be sure there will be a flood of applications to cover every part of it. this would seriously damage the greenbelt in this area as you would effectively be giving the go-ahead for it all to be built on.

3. There are plenty of brown field sites in Luton that would be more than sufficient to meet the housing needs in question and much more.
Indeed many of the brown sites in Luton town are in dire need of housing development to enhance the town and bring it closer to a cohesive, mixed community it once was. Building outside of the town will worsen its already serious fragmentation into clusters of disconnected residencies.
Luton town is in desperate need of rejuvenation, particularly new housing where people don't need personal transport to take advantage of the train stations and town amenities. Allowing development outside of the town will make town development less attractive to developers.

4. Part of the justification appears to be supported by plans for an as yet unapproved, un-built and unfunded road. So it doesn't exist and may well never exist. Traffic in the East Luton area is already regularly heavily congested at many parts of the day and is a main thoroughfare for access to the M1. Additional traffic would cause gridlock. We already recognise that Britain's productivity is negatively impacted by heavy traffic. This development will make it worse. You will be pumping cars into an area where traffic is expected to be already negatively impacted and getting worse, for instance by the intended growth of Luton airport.

5. The number of homes planned to be built, 2100, 14% of the total in the plan, is extremely disproportionate. You will be creating a vast estate that will completely swamp the existing communities. Building 2000+ homes around an existing community of about 200 is unreasonable.

My wife and I live in Great Offley and believe there are several areas where the above plan is UNSOUND:

1. Removing this Land from Green Belt status to meet 'Luton's Unmet Need':
* The National Planning Policy Framework document states that the Removal of Green Belt Status does not fit the Governments criteria of "Except in Exceptional Circumstances." Luton's Unmet Need is not and exceptional circumstance, it also states "an Unmet Need is unlikely to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt unless there are very Special Circumstances." There are sufficient undeveloped Brown field sites in Luton to meet its unmet needs;
* The removal of this land from the Green Belt as proposed in the NHDC Local Plan, leaves this land unprotected and open to Applications from Developers.

2. The infrastructure surrounding the development, both into North Herts and Luton:
* Luton Borough Council base their traffic modelling on an unbuilt link road to the A505 at Lilley. A Freedom of Information request states: "The 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". See Bloor Homes "Access and Masterplan slides" www.wandenpark.co.uk ("Newly constructed Relief Road linking Luton Road with Chalk Hill...") is this the spine road?
* However NHDC state on P72 of the NHDC Local Plan Para 4.222 - "Our assessments show that this level of development can be accommodated without a significant adverse impact on the wider highway networks of Luton and Hertfordshire".

3. The proposal is completely out 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.

We hope you feel the above points are fair and would really appreciate if you would take them into consideration.

I wish to raise my objections to the above plan. The criteria for my objections are as follows

1) No "Exceptional Circumstances" have been shown for the removal of the Green Belt Status currently afforded this area. Meeting "Luton's Unmet Need" does not justify removing the status. Luton has absolutely loads of Brown Field sites that meet their needs. In fact, Luton recently allowed Milton Keynes to buy a whole tower block to house their residents. I know new houses need to be built but the are plenty of alternative options on sites that can easily accessed & acquired without the investment in infrastructure that this plan requires.

2) There are currently only two roads in & out of this area. These are one car lanes with passing spaces every few hundred yards. These lanes are being used at this time as a "Rat Run" to & from the A505.
Luton BC has already said that the proposed site would need 5000 new homes before a major link could be built. There are only two feed roads that lead to the M1, Crawley Green Road & Eaton Green Road.
These roads are already congested & with Luton Airport expansion in progress these roads are set to be even worse including the added passenger/employee traffic. Also the construction of Napier Park on the Vauxhall site will increase volumes of traffic even further .It is estimated this development will have 7000 employees (LBC) It will make almost impossible to get out of Wigmore Estate. 2100 homes equates to 4000+ vehicles all being channelled down two single lane roads


3) The volume of homes being proposed is out of proportion. 2100+ homes will completely wipe out Tea Green, Cockenhoe & Mangrove Green as well as overshadowing the homes in Wigmore that will border this proposal.
Where will the people living in these houses go to the doctors, schools etc. There is only one or two surgeries in this area. It already takes more than a week to get an appointment. The schools are bursting at the seams. The infrastructure cannot cope with this development.

4) The paths & woodlands that would disappear are currently used by all the communities. Walking, cycling, running would all be gone. The wildlife would also be adversely affected. The area is populated by wild deer, owls & bats. There are also Red Kites which nest in the woodland. All this would be gone. Below is an extract from the RSPB website concerning the Red Kite

Legal status

The red kite is afforded the highest degree of legal protection under the Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

It is an offence to take, injure or kill a red kite or to take, damage or destroy its nest, eggs or young. It is also an offence to intentionally or recklessly disturb the birds close to their nest during the breeding season. Violation of the law can attract fines up to £5,000 per offence and/or a prison sentence of up to six months.

With a hope that sense will prevail

Representation on the Local Plan 2011-2031 submission document ("LPSD")
Notice
I have many objections to the LPSD and believe that changes are necessary, principally to eliminate the 2,100 new homes proposal for Luton. I wish to participate in the formal oral Examination of the Plan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
The roads and country lanes will never be able to cope with the massive increase in local traffic.

The demand on water and sewerage will cause more flooding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
This community affected by the planning will be overwhelmed & ultimately destroyed by the increase in traffic & people.

The roads , infrastructure - schools, doctors & shops would be rendered inadequate by the addition of over 2000 people & cars.

The current road system is almost gridlocked at 6.30 am from the bottom of Crawley Green Road up to the airport & motorway.

This plan is unsustainable & utterly impractical when viewed from any & all perspectives.

Sir, I implore you not to grant permission for this plan which would destroy a unique piece of England.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
These villages and communities should not be allowed to vanish and become part of a larger town. Cockernhoe, Tea Green etc should not become Luton.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misuse of beautiful green belt.

Plenty of brow fill sites available.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
There are insufficient infrastructure plans to cope with the already choked roads around the airport and rat runs through the surrounding back roads.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
Cockernhoe and Mangrove Green should remain as a village and not become part of a large town. The residents of the villages all enjoy all aspects of village life especially being surrounded by countryside which they use and enjoy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I absolutely object to the proposed building of an additional 2100 homes on the land west of Cockernhoe.

Quite simply this plan is without regard to the already stressed infrastructure, preservation of green belt land, wildlife and village identity. Why do we have to foot Luton's unmet need? How has that actually been quantified?

Rush hour traffic is horrific whichever route I use to exit the village either in the lanes which cannot accommodate traffic travelling in both directions safely and also via the roads towards the airport. With this plan this will only get significantly worse - this is not acceptable for current or future residents. Unless of course there is a future plan for a large access road between Hitchin and Luton closer to the airport which we have been promised there is not....

There has been no clarity on commissioning factors for our already overstretched local public services, where will the proposed additional thousand plus go for schooling, medical care and emergency services? Ultimately it creates a vastly diluted service for existing residents which again is unacceptable and dangerous - what about our human right to accessible health care provision, social care and education?

There are numerous, better suited sites available for development which are not being considered as you are trying to cram the unmet need in here to utilise our resources, saving time and money. This is a short term outlook which will create long term chaos. Additionally it is illegal to build on green belt land. This is attractive, utilised green belt land used not only by the farmers but by the public in their free leisure time. Buffer spaces are simply not comparable.

This is not a solution for the unmet housing need, nor do any of the local population welcome this. The village identity which has been preserved for decades will be lost - is this really necessary?

We as local residents are not being kept well informed or feel that our concerns and objections are being listened to. Surely this has to be the basis of a fair considered consultation. Putting the proposals in a newspaper that is not delivered to any of the residents is preposterous. Additionally we are not fairly represented by our local councillor as he supports this local plan which is not the view of our community. He supports this to remove the Wolf from his door, in doing so puts it firmly on ours. We should be entitled to have our views represented by someone who actually feels the same way.

I strongly oppose these and any other plans to build on the green belt land surrounding Cockernhoe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
Luton will swallow up the Hertfordshire village of Cockernhoe... destroying the village 'feel' and community situated on this Green belt land. Investment would be better on the plentiful brownfield sites available to preserve our precious villages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
Cockernhoe is a very small village and will not be able to function with more people!!
Focus on the houses that have been abandoned and need doing up rather than building more unnecessary houses we do not want on our green belt! It is green belt for a reason!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
The houses will be built over my horses stables and I have been at that stable for over 15 years and because of this we will have to re locate the horses and there isn't enough farms around Cockernhoe to rehome them all.

The roads will be busy causing lots of traffic, and more pollution ruining what little green belt we have left in this world.

There are loads of houses that are run down and no one is living in them you need to focus on those first before building on our wonderful country side.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
Green belt IS green belt! Once breached, a precedent is set and will be followed. Green Belt is what it was designed to be, a buffer between town and countryside. Attempts to shift the Green Belt borders are a quick fix for councils seeking fulfilment for housing quotas and greedy and unscrupulous developers who are only interested in profit.
The area in question is surrounded by single track rural roads that will be rat run to a worse degree than they are already. East Luton has a traffic problem already and those who would live in this new development would use rural roads to avoid this and gain access to routes to the A1 and local towns. This will be catastrophic and the result will be damage to the lives of those whose villages are along those routes. Creating homes for people is a necessity but not at the expense of others quality of life. That is wrong!! Morally wrong. I have lived in this area for 30 years plus and value my village, the countryside and the wild life around it. This development will change this forever. And, on the subject of wild life, this development will rob the herds of deer, birds and small mammals of their habitat, and the rat running through the lanes will result in the deaths of many of these creatures by town dwellers who have little understanding and little care for these unfortunate animals. We witness this every day here already and that will increase by a huge amount when people drive these small lanes in the way that they do now. So tragic and so wrong.
I whole heartedly object to this development and the damage that it will cause. This is a threat to my quality of life and that of many others that live in this beautiful countryside that you seek to turn into an extension of Luton and thus destroy.

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

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

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
WHENEVER I GO TO THE ASDA/ICELAND SHOPPING CENTRE THERE ARE FEW PARKING SPACES, SO HOW CAN IT BE CONSIDERED FEASIBLE THAT IT CAN COPE WITH ANOTHER 2500-5000 HOUSEHOLDS SHOULD THIS LUDICROUS PLAN BE GIVEN THE GO-AHEAD. IT IS THE SAME IN STOPSLEY VILLAGE AND WESTWAY SHOPS ARE AN IRRELEVANCE AS THEY CANNOT MEET LOCAL SHOPPING REQUIREMENTS.
THE PROPOSED PLAN IS FLAWED IN SO MANY WAYS THAT IT SURELY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE.

I wish to object to the above plan, especially the sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 which affect the villages of Cockernhoe, Mangrove and Tea Green as well as areas around Copthorne, Rochford Drive, Putteridgebury, Wigmore and Brick Kiln Lane. My main objections are as follows:

Green Belt land should be preserved at all costs in order to prevent urban sprawl, as was its original intention.

The development is entirely unsuitable for this area, being far too large and having inappropriate road access for the huge increase in traffic that would be created, and the associated noise and air pollution.

The countryside must be protected at all costs especially for our wildlife. There is no way the loss of this area could be compensated for within a huge and inappropriate housing development.

The ill effects of this development would be felt by the people of Luton, and it appears disingenuous to suggest that some 1950 homes are for Luton's unmet needs - a number that hasn't been qualified when challenged.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
All of the benefits of this development will go to North Hertfordshire Council the land owners and developers. There are no advantages for the Borough of Luton and residents, who will have their facilities and infrastructure overwhelmed; and not a penny in council tax revenue. If this land were ever to be developed, it would be fairer to allow Luton Borough Council to purchase the land and make the appropriate development, within its own boundaries.

Personally, I believe in green belt. It should be cherished and preserved for the future of our children. I therefore make the following points against the proposed development at Cockenhoe.
* Why are the council considering this huge development at Cockernhoe, in an area already blighted by noise and air pollution, which is only going to get worse, as Luton Airport expands?
* Why has the council chosen to expand a village of 200 houses, by building more than 2,000 houses? Similar plans for Codicote (a nearby village) of 1,500 homes, are to get just 73 new homes. Cockernhoe has only recently been expanded by some 20 homes which is in keeping for such a small country hamlet.
* A development of these proportions require more infrastructure than is being proposed. Hertfordshire County Council and the Developer should be encouraged to improve the access to Cockernhoe village, to and from the north, via Chalk Hill and the Lilly Bottom road, to the A505 prior to any development.
* All of the benefits of this development will go to North Hertfordshire Council the land owners and developers. There are no advantages for the Borough of Luton and residents, who will have their facilities and infrastructure overwhelmed; and not a penny in council tax revenue. If this land were ever to be developed, it would be fairer to allow Luton Borough Council to purchase the land and make the appropriate development, within its own boundaries.
* Where are the schools, doctors, shops, roads and parking for all the cars; not to mention the 4,000 to 6,000 people, who my live in these new homes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
My understanding is that green belt land was created for a very specific purpose - to prevent urban sprawl. This development is the very antithesis of that principle.

I fail to understand how green belt can only be green belt until someone decides to build on it. Surely that doesn't make sense.

I believe that this area must be preserved as green space to benefit all the people who live in the surrounding area, especially the villages. Most especially, we must protect all the wildlife that lives there. Our countryside must be looked after at all costs and protected for future generations. If we lose it, it will never be replaced.

As residents of Stopsley ward of Luton, we have great concerns of the proposed plan to build houses on this green field land.

The existing roads that will almost certainly take the brunt of construction, and future residents traffic, will be Ashcroft Road and Wigmore Lane, being the only present direct access from the A505 to the proposed development.

These roads are already suffering from increased traffic use, for the ever expanding Airport, and local schools, and as LBC have no plans to reduce the amount of traffic using these residential streets, things will only decline.

Although the development is supposed to provide some sort of spine road linking to the A505 this will not happen until 2031,if at all, as previous planned bypasses in Luton dating back to the 1960s have never been built, and continue to cause congestion on an ever increasing scale.

Our other issue is that no green belt land should be used until all brown field sites have been exhausted, this however does not suit the developers, as green field sites are cheaper to develop than brown field, cut out infrastructure costs and they have a profitable site, albeit at the expense of the existing local population.

This area is already over populated, and over used for industry and the airport, how much more pollution and traffic do we have accept in this once pleasant residential area, every house built will mean at least another two vehicles.

I live in Offley and believe there are several areas where the above plan in UNSOUND:

1. Removing this Land from Green Belt status to meet 'Luton's Unmet Need':
* The National Planning Policy Framework document states that the Removal of Green Belt Status does not fit the Governments criteria of "Except in Exceptional Circumstances." Luton's Unmet Need is not and exceptional circumstance, it also states "an Unmet Need is unlikely to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt unless there are very Special Circumstances." There are sufficient undeveloped Brown field sites in Luton to meet its unmet needs;
* The removal of this land from the Green Belt as proposed in the NHDC Local Plan, leaves this land unprotected and open to Applications from Developers.

2. The infrastructure surrounding the development, both into North Herts and Luton:
* Luton Borough Council base their traffic modelling on an unbuilt link road to the A505 at Lilley. A Freedom of Information request states: "The 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". See Bloor Homes "Access and Masterplan slides" www.wandenpark.co.uk ("Newly constructed Relief Road linking Luton Road with Chalk Hill...") is this the spine road?
* However NHDC state on P72 of the NHDC Local Plan Para 4.222 - "Our assessments show that this level of development can be accommodated without a significant adverse impact on the wider highway networks of Luton and Hertfordshire".

3. The proposal is completely out 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.

We hope you feel the above points are fair and would really appreciate if you would take them into consideration.

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, Round Green and even Luton Airport.
With the extensive Luton Airport expansion plans will come significant increases in traffic.
Access to Luton town centre from Hitchin is already a constant bottleneck during busy times of the day. Access to the airport at the same times of day is torturous and getting from Stopsley to the M1 ( 4 miles) takes anything from 15 to 40 minutes at these busy times.
Any increase in traffic levels is only bound to intensify this situation.

2,105 or more houses with anything from 1 to 4 cars per home will lead to unacceptable congestion consequences for this area.

Air quality and pollution has not be assessed in the residential areas around the airport and is bound to deteriorate.
Both LBC and NHDC have noted concerns over lack of necessary infrastructure and inadequate road networks due to the already existent congestion. 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 already at unacceptable levels.
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.

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. As a current resident of Wigmore I can tell you that the congestion on our roads has increased recently and it is unbelievably difficult to get a doctors appointment.

Where will the money for all this come from to upgrade our infrastructure? I am confident that 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.
Please consider this written address as confirmation that I wish to change the Local Plan and participate in the Examination.

Infrastructure and transportation networks are inadequately addressed in the parts of the plan relating sites East of Luton, to meet Luton's unmet Housing Need East of Luton.

I object that there is no justifiable need to declassify Land East of Luton from the Green Belt.

There are many viable alternatives, so the Local Plan is not in accordance with the National Framework Planning Policy since it is not "absolutely necessary."
I wish to change this plan. I want to participate in the Examination.

This will impact all of Luton; Wigmore, Stopsley, Eaton Green, Round Green and even Luton Airport.
With the extensive Luton Airport expansion plans will come significant increases in traffic.
Access to Luton town centre from Hitchin is already a constant bottleneck during busy times of the day. Access to the airport at the same times of day is torturous and getting from Stopsley to the M1 ( 4 miles) takes anything from 15 to 40 minutes at these busy times.
Any increase in traffic levels is only bound to intensify this situation.

2,105 or more houses with anything from 1 to 4 cars per home will lead to unacceptable congestion consequences for this area.

Air quality and pollution has not be assessed in the residential areas around the airport and is bound to deteriorate.
Both LBC and NHDC have noted concerns over lack of necessary infrastructure and inadequate road networks due to the already existent congestion. 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 already at unacceptable levels.
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.

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. As a current resident of Wigmore I can tell you that the congestion on our roads has increased recently and it is unbelievably difficult to get a doctors appointment.

Where will the money for all this come from to upgrade our infrastructure? I am confident that 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.
Please consider this written address that I wish to change the Local Plan and participate in the Examination.

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

This will impact all of Luton; Wigmore, Stopsley, Eaton Green, and even Round Green, Stockingstone Road, and even the over-stretched Luton and Dunstable Hospital!
Building 2,105 upwards houses will lead to unacceptable problematic congestion consequences for this area, especially in the light of the airport's vast expansion which planned simultaneously for this side of town. Air quality and pollution has not be assessed in the residential areas around the airport.
The Transport Assessments were not robust. The their data was inadequate and inaccurate; they did not include impacts of all new developments in the vicinity, they were not carried out for long enough, and some studies from Luton Borough Council assumed roads that did not even exist. Traffic congestion in Wigmore is unacceptable levels.
Both LBC and NHDC have noted concerns over lack of necessary infrastructure and inadequate road networks due to the already existent congestion.
The Plan is not deliverable if the basic required infrastructure and transportation access has not been delivered also. I travel from Wigmore every day and it can take me up to half an hour to get from my house to Capability Green during the week which is unacceptable yet you propose to put more traffic on the roads through this already congested area.
If you consider that Cockernhoe is 50 houses, the expansion threat is a huge 4,200 per cent!! This is disproportionate.

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

Therefore logic would dictate that all other infrastructure must also be matched by an expansion of 50 per cent too - so half of every public service available in Wigmore; ranging from shops and retail outlets, car parks, secondary and primary schools, petrol stations, policing services, fire services, health services, dental services must all be also expanded to that same degree. Where will the money for all this come from? The developers will not be paying for any of it.
Cockernhoe Village will no longer even exist. It would destroy an entire rural community and displace a village. It would change the character of the area to an unacceptable degree.
There have been no mitigating solutions to the air and noise pollution that will be generated from the extra cars, or the airport expansion in this area.
The unmet housing need figure also shows inaccuracies. During Executive Meetings LBC stated the need for a collaboration between neighbouring councils to commission another Strategic Housing Management Assessment to re-examine once more the Unmet Housing Need figure assumptions, due to their estimated nature but far-reaching consequences and drastic impact upon the area. Luton's unmet housing need figure is based on migration statistics. The Plan does not consider how Brexit will affect these either.
So consider this written address that I wish to change the Local Plan and participate in the Examination.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cockernhoe Village will no longer even exist. It would destroy an entire rural community and displace a village. It would change the character of the area to an unacceptable degree.
There have been no mitigating solutions to the air and noise pollution that will be generated from the extra cars, or the airport expansion in this area.
The unmet housing need figure also shows inaccuracies. During Executive Meetings LBC stated the need for a collaboration between neighbouring councils to commission another Strategic Housing Management Assessment to re-examine once more the Unmet Housing Need figure assumptions, due to their estimated nature but far-reaching consequences and drastic impact upon the area. Luton's unmet housing need figure is based on migration statistics. The Plan does not consider how Brexit will affect these either.
So consider this written address that I wish to change the Local Plan and participate in the Examination.
In my opinion, a Central Bedfordshire option, near to Slip End with easy access to the M1 motorway, would be a far better proposal and Luton Borough Council should be asking Central Bedfordshire to cooperate in providing land for the Luton unmet housing need.
I consider the proposed plans to the East of Luton be totally ill-conceived and inappropriate for this area.