Policy SP19: Sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 - East of Luton
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 285
Received: 09/11/2016
Respondent: Mrs S J Sajiwg
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 286
Received: 31/10/2016
Respondent: Mr W Cole
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 287
Received: 31/10/2016
Respondent: Miss Hannah Fleetwood
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 303
Received: 14/11/2016
Respondent: Sport England - East Region
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Object to SP19: The policy should be amended to require appropriate community sports (indoor and outdoor) facility provision to be made on-site
Concern is raised in relation to the site allocation policy not providing any policy guidance in relation to how community sports facility infrastructure should be provided for by this development. The Council has completed up-to-date assessment and strategies relating to both indoor and outdoor sports facilities which have identified a range of needs together with priorities about how the identified needs should be addressed. This development will generate significant additional demand for community sports facilities which the existing facilities in the Luton area will not be suitable for accommodating. This strategic allocation also represents one of the few opportunities where it would be appropriate to secure new sports facility provision on-site as part of the development in view of the scale of the development and the opportunities that exist to co-locate facilities in a potential new secondary school. For example, the North Herts evidence base identified a need for an additional sports hall and artificial grass pitches and specifically refers to the need for the local plan strategic housing allocations to be reviewed to consider how sports facility provision should be made. Regard should also be had to Luton Borough Council's evidence for base for indoor and outdoor sport given that functionally this allocation will be an extension to Luton and residents in the development will orientate towards Luton for meeting their sports facility needs rather than North Hertfordshire.
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 344
Received: 21/10/2016
Respondent: Mr David Wheatley
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, lack of education infrastructure, biodiversity
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 351
Received: 14/11/2016
Respondent: V Ruffett
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 353
Received: 14/11/2016
Respondent: Mr Shaun Ruffett
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 359
Received: 14/11/2016
Respondent: Lesley Twyman
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 360
Received: 14/11/2016
Respondent: Mr Ivor Twyman
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 366
Received: 11/11/2016
Respondent: Mr David Groucutt
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable,
I strongly object to the outline North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031 especially the sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 which affect the areas of Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green, Tea Green, Copthorne, Rochford Drive, Putteridgebury, Wandon End, Wigmore and Brick Kiln Lane, for the following reasons:-
The 'New Neighbourhood Planning Infrastructure Bill 2016' states that it supports the Government's ambition to deliver one million new homes, whilst protecting those areas that are valued most, including the Green Belt. This area is Green Belt and the application does not meet the 'Very Special Circumstances' required to build on it as stated in Paragraph 80 and 83 of the National Planning Framework and also the House of Commons briefing note on Green Belt. The Green Belt boundaries should not be amended in response to individual planning applications (The National Planning Framework, paragraph. 83).
There are 205 dwellings in Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green and Tea Green currently. An additional 2100 dwellings will be an increase of 1124%. This development is completely out of proportion to all other developments in the district - these villages and communities will cease to exist. Of these additional dwellings 150 are for North Herts, the remaining 1950 are to meet Luton's supposed unmet needs, a number which has not been qualified when challenged.
There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure. Crawley Green Road and Eaton Green Road are backing up over 750 metres at their junctions with Airport Way during the rush hour, without the addition of a further 5,000+ vehicles. The roads through the airport are often gridlocked and with the growth of passengers at Luton Airport, currently 12.75 million (2015) with a projected increase year on year to 22 million by 2030 this is set to worsen, Stockingstone and A505 suffer equally
The traffic survey carried out in 2015 was not done to industry standards i.e. for a month and also the results of this survey showed a negligible or nil effect on local congestion when the results, and thus the underpinning of the proposal were based on a road that does not exist has not been proposed and has been stated by the Council that there is no money to develop. In the shorter term, the projected airport development/business park/light industry, will attract a further
7,000 employees (ref LBC). The roads cannot cope with this increase in vehicles.
The two country lanes with insufficient passing places which lead out of the site into North Herts are already being used as dangerous rat runs. This will increase as residents seek to access the M1 via Lilley Bottom and Lilley, and seek to access Hitchin, Stevenage and the A1 through Offley.
The paths and woodlands are used by villagers and people from neighbouring Luton as a leisure area for walking, running, cycling and other leisure activities. These will be destroyed despite the national push to encourage people to keep fit.
In the presentation of the local plan Councillor Levitt stated that 'the development plays a key role in supporting the growth of our economy planning for the right type and number of homes, in the right place to create sustainable communities'. How can a development only linking North Herts by two single track lanes be considered as a sustainable community?
There is sufficient brown field land in Luton to accommodate 'Luton's unmet need' at the same housing density as the proposed development.
Teeming wildlife, owl, bats, deer, etc; will be displaced. Wildlife corridors are no substitute.
In addition to the above the local schools, nursery places, GP surgeries and dental practices are already oversubscribed, having to wait up to two weeks for a doctor's appointment.
Parking and infrastructure at the local shops/supermarket is woefully inadequate.
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 367
Received: 11/11/2016
Respondent: Mrs V Groucutt
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
I strongly object to the outline North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031 especially the sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 which affect the areas of Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green, Tea Green, Copthorne, Rochford Drive, Putteridgebury, Wandon End, Wigmore and Brick Kiln Lane, for the following reasons:-
The 'New Neighbourhood Planning Infrastructure Bill 2016' states that it supports the Government's ambition to deliver one million new homes, whilst protecting those areas that are valued most, including the Green Belt. This area is Green Belt and the application does not meet the 'Very Special Circumstances' required to build on it as stated in Paragraph 80 and 83 of the National Planning Framework and also the House of Commons briefing note on Green Belt. The Green Belt boundaries should not be amended in response to individual planning applications (The National Planning Framework, paragraph. 83).
There are 205 dwellings in Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green and Tea Green currently. An additional 2100 dwellings will be an increase of 1124%. This development is completely out of proportion to all other developments in the district - these villages and communities will cease to exist. Of these additional dwellings 150 are for North Herts, the remaining 1950 are to meet Luton's supposed unmet needs, a number which has not been qualified when challenged.
There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure. Crawley Green Road and Eaton Green Road are backing up over 750 metres at their junctions with Airport Way during the rush hour, without the addition of a further 5,000+ vehicles. The roads through the airport are often gridlocked and with the growth of passengers at Luton Airport, currently 12.75 million (2015) with a projected increase year on year to 22 million by 2030 this is set to worsen, Stockingstone and A505 suffer equally
The traffic survey carried out in 2015 was not done to industry standards i.e. for a month and also the results of this survey showed a negligible or nil effect on local congestion when the results, and thus the underpinning of the proposal were based on a road that does not exist has not been proposed and has been stated by the Council that there is no money to develop. In the shorter term, the projected airport development/business park/light industry, will attract a further
7,000 employees (ref LBC). The roads cannot cope with this increase in vehicles.
The two country lanes with insufficient passing places which lead out of the site into North Herts are already being used as dangerous rat runs. This will increase as residents seek to access the M1 via Lilley Bottom and Lilley, and seek to access Hitchin, Stevenage and the A1 through Offley.
The paths and woodlands are used by villagers and people from neighbouring Luton as a leisure area for walking, running, cycling and other leisure activities. These will be destroyed despite the national push to encourage people to keep fit.
In the presentation of the local plan Councillor Levitt stated that 'the development plays a key role in supporting the growth of our economy planning for the right type and number of homes, in the right place to create sustainable communities'. How can a development only linking North Herts by two single track lanes be considered as a sustainable community?
There is sufficient brown field land in Luton to accommodate 'Luton's unmet need' at the same housing density as the proposed development.
Teeming wildlife, owl, bats, deer, etc; will be displaced. Wildlife corridors are no substitute.
In addition to the above the local schools, nursery places, GP surgeries and dental practices are already oversubscribed, having to wait up to two weeks for a doctor's appointment.
Parking and infrastructure at the local shops/supermarket is woefully inadequate.
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 376
Received: 14/11/2016
Respondent: Skye Ruffett
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 377
Received: 14/11/2016
Respondent: Mr Joel Ruffett
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 379
Received: 31/10/2016
Respondent: Mrs Helen Evans
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 380
Received: 31/10/2016
Respondent: Mr James Evans
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 385
Received: 03/11/2016
Respondent: Mr Jon Mayles
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 390
Received: 04/11/2016
Respondent: Mr Colin Ellingham
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 408
Received: 04/11/2016
Respondent: Mr Brian Whitehead
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 419
Received: 08/11/2016
Respondent: Mr M J Allen
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 421
Received: 08/11/2016
Respondent: Ms Janet Bierton
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 428
Received: 17/11/2016
Respondent: Mrs Amanda King
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Object to SP19: Infrastructure, traffic on rural lanes
Any development to the east would never provide the infrastructure necessary. Traffic from any new development would try to find ways out through the dangerous and narrow lanes of rural North Herts.
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 431
Received: 07/11/2016
Respondent: Mr John Milligan
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 433
Received: 07/11/2016
Respondent: Ms Yasmin Milligan
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 440
Received: 08/11/2016
Respondent: Mr Martin Bierton
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 466
Received: 08/11/2016
Respondent: Mrs B Whitehead
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 476
Received: 18/11/2016
Respondent: Miss Catherine A Smith
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 478
Received: 17/11/2016
Respondent: Mrs V H Smith
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 482
Received: 17/11/2016
Respondent: Sir Simon Bowes Lyon
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Object to SP19: Green Belt
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 718
Received: 18/11/2016
Respondent: Mr D West
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity, GP capacity
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 720
Received: 18/11/2016
Respondent: Mrs S West
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
See attachment