Policy SP19: Sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 - East of Luton
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 4223
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: Bloor Homes South Midlands
Agent: White Peak Planning
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19: Generally support as promoter, object to clause (k)(i) Stubbocks Wood outside allocation boundary, no direct development effects.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 4225
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: The Chilterns Conservation Board
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Objection to SP19:
-setting of Chilterns AONB
-section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000
-consistency with NPPF, PPG and 'Development Affecting the Setting of the Chilterns AONB'
-likely to affect the AONB and public enjoyment of the AONB
-scale out of character
-harm landscape character
-settlement coalescence
-increase traffic&air pollution
-reduce tranquillity&dark skies
-increase water abstraction
-fragment green corridors and habitats
-increase pressure for new strategic roads
-long term,cross-boundary,cumulative effects not satisfactorily addressed in the SA
-lack of consideration of alternatives
-prejudices AONB boundary review
-full LVIAs not undertaken
-conflicts with landscape study
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 4230
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: Offley (with Cockernhoe) Parish Council
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19: Traffic impact, inadequate transport assessment, air quality and pollution, lack of necessary infrastructure and road network, disproportionate increase, impact upon Cockernhoe
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 4319
Received: 29/11/2016
Respondent: Mr Stephen Edwards
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Objection to SP19 on he grounds of:
- beautiful Green Belt
- there are large areas of brown belt land that could be built on
- roads - additional traffic
- local schools already full
I would like to strongly object to the proposed building of hundreds of houses near Mangrove and Cockernhoe. I cannot believe that you would build on beautiful green belt when there are large areas of brown belt land that could be built on. The roads in that area cannot cope at present have you not thought of the chaos that the additional traffic will cause, the local schools are already full. This is a terrible plan, please think again!1
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 4321
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: Mr Barry Cottier
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 4324
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: Miss A J Bonar
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 4328
Received: 29/11/2016
Respondent: Ms Alison Plummer
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 4338
Received: 29/11/2016
Respondent: Mr Eric Farr
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 4344
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: Mr Paul Richard Squires
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 4364
Received: 28/11/2016
Respondent: Mrs Lynda Y Stoker
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 4365
Received: 28/11/2016
Respondent: Mr Douglas W Stoker
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 4408
Received: 29/11/2016
Respondent: Mrs Linda Farr
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 4454
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: Councillor Peter Chapman
Number of people: 3
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to EL1, EL2 and EL3: Lack of infrastructure, airport growth, traffic, better alternatives to west of Luton, Green Belt.
We are elected Councillors for the Wigmore Ward of Luton Borough Council and ask you to accept and acknowledge the following representations on the North Hertfordshire Proposed Submission Local Plan and in particular on the proposed inclusion of significant housing developments East of Luton.
Our central concerns are that infrastructure and transportation networks are inadequately addressed in the parts of the plan relating to Luton's Unmet Housing Need East of Luton. If implemented, the plan will lead to unacceptable problematic congestion consequences for this area, especially in the light of the airport's vast expansion planned simultaneously.
Future residents of any housing development East of Luton would look to Luton for their employment, shopping, health, education and social needs. Their only possible access to Luton town centre is via Eaton Green Road, Crawley Green Road or Hitchin Road and all of these roads are congested well beyond their safe capacity. During the morning peak period the journey time for the last half mile leading to Luton town centre is typically around 40 minutes now.
It is impossible to conceive any way in which the capacity of these three roads could be increased and so significant housing development east of Luton would inevitably produce a massive increase in already unacceptable traffic queues experienced every day.
We are aware of the response of Luton Borough Council regarding their unmet housing need and the contribution they believe North Herts can make. Their entire case rests on the need to finance a new road which could not be funded by smaller developments. Hence they are looking for a new road from the A505 to the airport and on to M1 junction 10. Yet even if this new road could be achieved it would simplify the journey from the new development to the airport and to the M1 motorway but do nothing to help families from the new homes to get into Luton town centre, to local employment areas, to medical facilities or to schools.
Ms Carolyn Cottier, in her response, says she has identified some serious inconsistencies with the National Planning Framework, since there is not yet any proven justified need for declassifying the Land East of Luton from the greenbelt due to lack of viable alternatives.
There are better alternatives and we strongly support housing development to the West of Luton which could go a considerable way to contribute to Luton's unmet need. Some of this land is within the current boundaries of Luton Borough Council and some is in Central Bedfordshire.
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 4461
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: Ms Karen Jay
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object on the following grounds:
lack of specific consultation in the area;
loss of green belt;
no specific criteria to require Luton to demonstrate there is an unmet need; and
no protection in the policy for the village greens in Cockernhoe; Mangrove Green and Tea Green.
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 4462
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: Mr Neil Jay
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object on the following grounds:
road infrastructure cannot cope with peak traffic flow;
loss of green belt;
unmet need from Luton is not an exceptional circumstance;
development is out of proportion with the existing settlements; and
no local advertising of the consultation.
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 4514
Received: 29/11/2016
Respondent: Mr Glyn Edwards
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 4518
Received: 29/11/2016
Respondent: Kim Stone
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 4520
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: Mr Roger Ansell
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 4529
Received: 29/11/2016
Respondent: Laura Coles
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 4532
Received: 29/11/2016
Respondent: Mr Clive Dix
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 4533
Received: 29/11/2016
Respondent: Mr K W Parker
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 4536
Received: 29/11/2016
Respondent: Mr & Mrs J Bell
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 4539
Received: 29/11/2016
Respondent: Donna Conaghan
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 4542
Received: 29/11/2016
Respondent: Ms Mary Brady
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 4543
Received: 29/11/2016
Respondent: Sharon Hughes
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 4546
Received: 29/11/2016
Respondent: A Blake
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 4547
Received: 29/11/2016
Respondent: Mrs Anne Hamlett
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 4550
Received: 29/11/2016
Respondent: Mr Todd Beasey-Webb
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 4551
Received: 29/11/2016
Respondent: Ellie Coles
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 4554
Received: 29/11/2016
Respondent: Mr M Nicholls
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attached