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

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attachments (and below)

National policy on Green Belts not adhered to. Does not meet exceptional circumstances.
The vast majority of proposed new dwelling are in current Green Belt. (60% proposed dwellings within green belt despite the fact 2/3 of district land is outside green belt).

One of the five purposes of Green Belts as stated in the National Planning policy framework is "To assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land". The NHDC Green belt review part 1 recognises this in "Assessment against Green belt principles" (paragraph 32 and table 2) However this criteria is not included in Table 5: Assessment of Existing Green Belt. The purpose of the proposed removal of Green Belt to the east of Luton (in Sector 2 EL1 EL2 & EL3) is to meet the wider needs of the Luton housing market area. The destruction of the Green Belt to allow the development of 2100 new sites will effectively result in Luton extending into rural Hertfordshire. This significant number of sites will logically have an effect on the will to and cost effectiveness of recycling derelict and other urban land in Luton. Since urban regeneration is one of the five purposes of a Green Belt I feel this factor should have been included before the report recommended the significant destruction of Green Belt to the east of Luton. I could find no evidence of this having been done in any of the documentation. The assertion in the Green Belt review that "the fifth purpose has not been considered as the other four purposes are all deemed to contribute to urban regeneration" does not really hold water when considering destroying a significant portion of green belt which is currently constraining the spread of urban Luton to the east. The stated purpose of destroying the Green Belt to allow development to the east of Luton is to address housing needs of Luton not NHDC so there should be documentation of the effects this development will have on urban regeneration in Luton.
The green belt review is flawed. Luton is not included as a historic town.
The plan is contrary to national policy to prevent urban sprawl. The plan is not in line with Luton Borough council's statements on importance of Green Belt.

For these reasons I object to the Green Belt review and therefore Policy SP5 which references it.

The creation of vast new areas of Green Belt between Hitchin/Stevenage and Luton will make it increasingly difficult to provide for any future housing need.
The current Green Belts are stopping the current urban areas from spreading. If they are allowed to do so and all the land between them is made new Green Belt then the next time there is a need to provide more housing the only option will be to (again) allow the expansion of these settlements by destroying more Green Belt.
A genuinely plan led solution may see benefit in retaining current Green Belts. This would encourage Urban regeneration (of which there is a lot of land to redevelop in Luton). Further need could be provided by expanding current settlements outside of the Green Belt or creating new settlements such as a new Garden City.

NHDC have not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances required to justify destroying the Green Belt east of Luton.
NHDC in 4.221 reference Sir Michael Heseltines "leave no stone unturned" quote as justification (point 69). The report in question relates to growth and I could find no reference to it justifying destroying Green Belt. I did however find the following quote from Sir Michael Heseltine "It does indeed seem ridiculous that we should be scrabbling around for land in the South East - even contemplating the destruction of the green belt - when such a large and strategically-located area is in such obvious need of regeneration."

The assumptions made in the Draft Sustainability appraisal seem very biased and potentially flawed. In Table 4 What would happen without the plan? to sum up most of what could happen without a local plan "national policy might protect you but we might be able to do things better with a local plan". OK - now where's the table listing what could happen with the proposed local plan? (you're village / hamlet is subsumed into a neighbouring councils town and all the buses taking pupils to school miles away are increasing traffic and CO2 emissions). That outcome is a lot more likely than half the possibilities mentioned in the report. The sustainability appraisal is one long extremely biased piece of scaremongering propaganda and a document so lacking in facts or balanced predictions has no place being included in this process. I object to policy SP1 and the sustainability report.

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attachment

See attachment

See attached

See attachment

See attached

See attachment

TO THE LOCAL PLAN 2011-2031 BY NORTH HERTFORDSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL (NHDC)

(I want to change the Local Plan and I wish to participate at the oral examination)

1. I JUDGE THIS PLAN TO BE UNSOUND

The plan is unsound for the following reasons:

1) The Plan is not Positively Prepared
2) The Plan is not Justified
3) The Plan is not Effective
4) The Plan is not consistent with National Policy

NOT POSITIVELY PREPARED

Plan Policy SP8

Para 158 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

1.00 Reliance upon figures, estimates or instructions obtained from the Dept. of Communities and Local Government (CLG) or the Office of National Statistics (ONS) does not remove the obligation of the Local Plan from complying with Para 158 when assessing housing need. The NPPF gives the guidance that the CLG Projections are the appropriate starting point in determining objectively assessed need but the CLG projections are only appropriate when they are in accordance with Para 158.

1.01 It should be noted that Para 158 refers to the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area of the local planning authority except for that allowed by Para 182.

1.02 There is considerable reason to doubt the adequacy, up to date-ness and relevancy of the CLG household Projections and whether they provide a full account of relevant and economic signals as required by para 158.

1.03 The CLG household projections call for an increase of 15000 houses for North Herts between 2011 and 2031. This is an annual rate of increase of 1.39 %. These figures are employed as the basis for the Objectively Assessed Housing Need for the Local Plan.

1.04 The CLG household projections are, according to the CLG, based upon the 2014 ONS sub-national population projections for the East of England. These figures are calculated for the period 2014-2024. The population increase over this period is given as 8.9% or 0.89% per annum. Thus the CLG, in their household projections, give a rate of population increase 56% larger than the ONS figures. There is not the adequacy, up to date-ness or relevancy (as required by para 158) in the CLG figures to explain why they ae that much larger than the ONS figures.

1.05 Should some of this 56% increase in households by the CLG figures be to satisfy the unmet housing requirement of a non-neighbouring area, such as London, then in that case the Plan contravenes para 182 of the NPPF which states:- The Plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so.......

1.06 The ONS 2014-2024 sub-national population figures for the East of England do not themselves take into account the effect of an imminent Brexit event. Robert Goodwill, The Minister of State for Immigration has stated in November 2016 that the government is committed to reducing net immigration to sustainable levels - which he defines as "tens of thousands". This is a considerable reduction on pre-Brexit projections. It would imply a maximum net migration of 90,000. i.e.0.14% per annum (total pop.64.6 million). Brexit is expected to occur some time after March 2017. with some 14 years of the Local Plan yet to follow. Thus a Brexit event is very relevant and should be taken into account under the requirements of Para 158.

1.07 This post Brexit expected lower level of migration decreases the ONS 2014-2024 total annual sub-national population increase for the East of England to 0.46% from the pre-Brexit figure of 0.89%. Thus the reliance on 2014 ONS pre-Brexit population projections by the CLG and therefore also by the Local Plan, does not give the adequacy, up to date-ness and relevancy as required by Para 158.

1.08 It should be noted that the pre-Brexit 2014 sub-national population figures for the Est of England include an annual increase of 0.28% for internal UK migration. If this internal migration is to satisfy the unmet housing requirement of an non-neighbouring area, such as London, then the Plan contravenes Para 182 of the NPPF which states:- The Plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so.....

As London grows at a fast rate it is most likely that this is the source of the internal migration into North Herts. By not stating from where this internal migration originates the ONS subnational projections are not adequate for use by the Plan as required by Para 158.

1.09 The Plan calls for an increase in houses of 16900 over 20 years on a starting stock of 55150, which is an average annual increase of 1.53%. This, in turn, is an increase which, once again, does not meet the adequacy , up to date-ness and relevancy required by Para 158.

1.10 The proposed rate of average annual rate of increase of housing stock employed by the Plan of 1.53% should be compared with the post-Brexit adjusted 2014 ONS sub-national population projections for the East of England of 0.46% (internal migration not included). The difference amounts to 11830 houses - much of which is allocated to be built on Green Belt land. Legitimate internal migration would require some of these.

1.11 The Plan, in proposing so many more houses than are needed for local requirements, acts to encourage migration into North Herts by creating a availability of houses beyond local needs. This effect is the opposite to the requirement of Para 158 which states that the Local Plan should be based on up to date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area.

Whether potential migrants exist in other areas capable of being attracted to the NHDC area is no concern of the Local Plan, except where there is unmet need from a neighbouring area. The unmet need from both the Luton and Stevenage areas has not been properly quantified according to the requirements of Para 158 for the same reasons as given above for the NHDC Local Plan.

1.12 A further relevant factor ignored by the Plan contrary to Para 158 is the inability, or lack of desire, of developers to build beyond a certain rate. Ths effect has been pointed out by the CPRE in their paper "Set Up To Fail". On average developers build just 50% (taken over the last 15 years) of what there is land available for. In this respect the Plan does not comply with Para 154 of the NPPF which requires plans to be realistic.

An unfortunate consequence of making too much land available is that developers are given a choice of which site to develop and they usually choose a Green Belt site in preference to a Brownfield site as it is cheaper for them to build on.

NOT JUSTIFIED

2.00 The Plan is not the most appropriate strategy as it proposes to build many more houses than are required on the evidence supplied or are likely to be built (see under Not Positively Prepared). Furthermore it breaches the NPPF both in the Foreward, Core Planning Principles and Paragraphs 14, 15, 17, 79, 80, 83, 89, 158 and 182 (see under Not Consistent with National Policy).

NOT EFFECTIVE

Plan Policy SP8

3.00 The Plan is not effective as it ignores the rate at which developers ish to build houses. This effect is described in the CPRE Paper "Set Up to Fail". On average developers build just 50% of what they have land available for. This gives the developers a choice of which site to develop and they usually choose a Green Belt site in preference to a Brownfield site as it is cheaper for them to do so. Thus the expected build rate of developers is a relevant factor in any Local Plan.

The Plan is also not effective as it proposes to build many more houses (16900 in total) than is required (see under Not Positively Prepared above).

NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY as outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The paragraphs listed below refer to the NPPF unless specified otherwise:

4.00 The Plan contravenes the NPPF in sites BA1, LG1, NS1,HT1, GA1,GA2.EL1, EL2, AND EL3 for the reasons given below:

4.01 The Plan contravenes the 1st Core Principle of Para 14 of the NPPF notwithstanding the statement of community involvement, Para 1.19 of the Plan.

The Ministerial Foreward of the NPPF notes that in recent years planning has tended to exclude, rather than include, people and communities and the NPPF allows people and communities back into planning.

4.02 This is addressed by the 1st Principle in Para 14 which states: Planning should empower people to shape their surroundings

and also by Para 155 which states:- Early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods, local organisations and businesses is essential. A wide section of the community should be pro-actively engaged

4.03 The great majority of representations to the earlier stage of consultation (2014) of the Local Plan (7502 objections versus just 559 supports) have been ignored. Despite the many objections against building on Green Belt land, the amount of Green Belt land allocated for housing was actually increased after the consultation at Site NS1.

Plan Policy SP1

5.00 PARA 14 states there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-making

The word sustainable is given in the Ministerial Foreward of the NPPF to mean:- ensuring better lives for ourselves without making lives worse fr future generations.

and opened to people to experience it, to the benefit of body and soul.

5.01 Para 15 states:- All Plans should be based upon and reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development

Thus development on Green Belt land - as on Plan sites BA1, LG1, NS1, HT1, GA1, GA2, EL1, EL2, EL3 must, under the above definition of sustainability, make lives worse for those in the future, who would otherwise have enjoyed the Green Belt for walks on foot, by horse, for play/leisure, discovering and enjoying wildlife and for its views as are currently being enjoyed by the present generation.

Thus the Plan contravenes the NPPF both in the Foreward and in Paras 14 and 15.

Policy SP5 - Countryside and Green Belt

6.00 In Policy SP5 NHDC states :- We support the principles of the Greeen Belt and recognise the intrinsic value of the countryside.

6.01 CORE PLANNING PRNCIPLES, Para 17 states the Core 12 Principles for Plan-making and decision-making.

The 5th Principle requires the protection of Green Belts.
The 8th Principle requires the re-using of Brownfield land.

The Plan contravenes the 5th Core Principle ins ites BA1, LG1, NS1, HT1, GA1, GA2, EL1, EL2, EL3.

6.02 Para 79 of the NPPF is crucially important as it defines the Green Belt here:- The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt Policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

In Policy SP5 the NHDC accept Para 7 of the NPPF which determines that permanence is one of the essential characteristics of the Green Belt. Yet the Plan intends to remove land from the Green Belt, thereby destroying is permanence and contravening Para 79 and the Plan's own statement of agreement with Para 79.

6.03 Para 80 states that:

Green Belt serves five purposes:

Amongst these:

To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas.
To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into each other.
To assist in guarding the countryside from encroachment.
To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.

Hence Para 80 gives the reasons for the establishment of the Green Belt legislation.

The Plan contravenes all four of these purposes in several proposed housing sites. For example:

6.04 The urban sprawl of Stevenage is exampled in sites GA1 and GA2 and also in NS1 which is designed to integrate (Policy SP16) with an adjoining proposed development in the Stevenage Borough (SBC) Local Plan to create a combined urban sprawl from Stevenage to the village of Graveley of 1.3 kms in depth. This is a monstrous contravention of the above four purposes of Para 80.

6.05 The third purpose of Para 80 I breached by sies GA1, GA2, NS1, BA1, LG,HT1, EL1, EL2, EL3.

6.06 The preservation of the setting and special characteristics of historic towns (the fourth purpose given in Para 80) is contravened in particular at Baldock and at Graveley where the proposed number of houses (2800 at BA1 and 900 at NS1) will have an enormous deleterious effect relative to the present number of houses in these two places.

6.07 Para 83 of the NPPF states that once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances.

In Para 83 no more explicit definition is placed upon the phrase "exceptional circumstances".

6.08 In Policy SP5 the Plan quotes the judgement of Mr Justice Jay in the Calverton Parish Council v Greater Nottingham Councils (2015) EWHC 1078 case as justification for building on Green Belt land.

Mr Justice Jay stated that:- It would be illogical and circular, to conclude that the existence of an objectively assessed (housing) need could, without more, be sufficient to amount to "exceptional circumstances" within the meaning of Paragraph 83 of the NPPF".

The Plan does not provide evidence to show "exceptional circumstances" other than housing need, which is specifically rejected by Mr Justice Jay.

The following discusses the phrase "exceptional circumstances" in the event that the Local Plan is later modified to include certain circumstances purported to be acceptable within Para 83

7.00 It cannot be the case that a circumstance be considered as "exceptional" within the meaning of Para 83 or "very special" within the meaning of Paras 87 and 88 if the employment of that particular circumstance effectively destroys the fundamental purposes of the Green Belt as described in Para 80, or the essence of the Green Belt as described in Para 79. For if the purpose or the essence of the Green Belt is destroyed then Paras 83,87, and 88 themselves become meaningless.

7.01 The destruction of the essence of the Green Belt occurs when its openness is challenged by erecting buildings upon it. The destruction of the permanence of the Green Belt occurs if any part of Green Belt land is later designated as non-Green Belt land. Even relatively small incursions of the Green Belt have the effect of destroying the essence of the Green Belt when continuously repeated, as they may be.

7.02 The Hon Mr Justice Jay suggests five possibilities for exceptional circumstances:

1) The acuteness of the need
2) Constraints on the supply of available land
3) The difficulty of finding non Green Belt sites
4) The nature and extent of the Green Belt if developed
5) The extent to which the loss of Green Belt may be ameliorated.

7.03 My comment on Mr Justice Jay's ruling is that his 5 permissible exceptions destroy the intent and essence of the Green Belt as described in Para 79 and contravenes the purposes of the Green Belt as described in Para 80 and are therefore not permissible.

7.04 One should consider:

1) the acuteness of the need. Firstly, the need for housing must be determined within the restraints of Para 158. Under those circumstances the true need may not be acute, as is the case described in Paras 1.00 - 1.12 above. Need is an objective assessment which has to be considered whether it is exceptional compared to previous occasions eve though subjectively considered currently high.

It is not acuteness that matters it is exceptional acuteness.

2) No matter the constraint on land supply there always exists the possibility of building on non-Green Belt land in the form of a New Town or on Brownfield sites or on other green spaces owned by the NHDC (Barkas [2014]) Any constraint which still exists after all other avenues have been explored in its self has to be exceptional compared to previous constraints.

3) There may be difficulties but all other possibilities must first be considered. Once again the difficulties must be compared to previous difficulties in order to show exceptionality.

4) One exceptional characteristic of Green Belt (Para 79) is its permanence which thus denies the allowance of even small harms.

Thus the nature and extent of the harm is not an issue if no harm may be done.

5) A loss of Green Belt violates the essence of the NPPF as described in Para 79, so amelioration is not an issue.


8.00 Para 89 states a local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt.

The exceptions listed are not applicable to the Local Plan. This definition of inappropriateness applies to Paras 87 and 88 and elsewhere. Thus the construction of new buildings is not allowed on the Green Belt. Thus the Plan contravenes Para 89 of the NPPF in proposing building on sites. GA, GA2, NS1, BA1, LG1, HT1, EL1, EL2 AND EL3.
.

Plan Policy SP10

8.01 Para 7 of the NPPF - a social role -states that the supply of housing is required to meet the needs of present and future generations.

Thus it is necessary to have an accurate prediction of the type and size of future generations. The inaccuracy of the housing need figures employed by the Plan is addressed under the Section Not Positively Prepared, above.

8.01 The Plan is seriously flawed in that it cannot meet the needs of a future generation as it does not employ the most accurate projection of the size and make-up of that future generation.

Thus the Plan is in contravention of the requirement of the NPPF Para 7.

Plan Policy SP13

9.00 The Ministerial Foreward of the NPPF also states that :
Our historic environment - buildings, landscapes, towns and villages - can better be cherished if their spirit of place thrives rather than withers.

The spirit of the small town of Baldock (BA1, 2800 extra houses) and that of the village of Graveley (NS1, 900 extra houses planned - a 450% increase) and Codicote (CD1, CD2, CD3,CD4, a 24% increase) for example, cannot be expected to survive undiminished if this Plan is implemented.
Thus Para 14 of the NPPF is contravened by the Plan.

10.00 Conclusion

The object of the NHDC Local Plan appears to be to maximise the number of houses built - whether on Green Belt or not - and irrespective of the requirements of the NPPF and the true needs of the current population. The requirements of the NPPF are observed more in its breach than in its observance despite several exhortations to the contrary. It is only logical to assume that the Government's New Homes Bonus - which is designed to encourage more house building- is working very effectively at NHDC.


ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

I wish to draw to your attention to the fact that I have emailed Cllr Levett, Planning Officer about a Green Belt matter which much concerned me and not received a reply at all. See below my email relating to recorded comment in Minutes of Cabinet Meeting July 20th 2016.

David

I still have not had a reply to my email of 21 September 2016 to explain how your comment on 20 July, which was a recorded comment saying that you were increasing the Green Belt.

Yu certainly aren't doing that in Graveley !!!!








I have asked for maps of GA1, GA2 and NS1 not for myself, but for other people at their request, because they could not locate the maps themselves. I was advised of the wrong location on the Local Plan information for these maps by Nigel Smith, NHDC's Principal Strategic Planning Officer.

I noted that Minutes of a Cabinet Meeting which took place in September 2016 were not made available to the public until November 2016 relating to adopting the Local Plan. This seems an excessively long time to publish Minutes. I asked the person responsible for compiling them for a copy but was never sent them.

On the subject of Brownfield sites, I emailed Planners for a map or list of Brownfield sites. The response was that NHDC does not hold such a thing. I then found out that I should have done a Freedom of Information Request to enable me to obtain this information. It is concerning that NHDC will not divulge such information willingly and I have been informed by a District Councillor that brownfield sites have been discussed at NHDC Council Meetings and rejected out of hand.

My over-riding concern is that this Local Plan has not taken account of residents' wishes at all. I went to the public meeting where the Local Plan was voted upon by Councillors, on 20 July 2016 which started at approx. 7.30 pm but did not end until after well after 12.midnight. the following day. The atmosphere, pushed hard by Cllr Levett, the Planning Official who created the Plan was of the very unpleasant type of very hard selling such as the elderly and vulnerable experience when someone intent on obtaining their bank details marches them off to the nearest cash point to take all their money out. He kept forcing Councillors, who had reservations about the Plan, and voiced them at the time to vote in favour of it. Councillors there said they "struggled" with it, and there were abstentions and some against.

I am told by a new LibDem Councillor that he was told he had to vote in favour of the Plan, by a person in the Legal Department of NHDC who was present on the panel at that meeting. Conservative Councillors also actually said that they had been forced to vote for the Local Plan or be ejected from their local party. All very unpleasant to see unfolding before your eyes.


Relevant Recent Case to NS1- November 2016 Planning Inspector P.Major Langley Burrell, Chippenham



There was another recent case where In the final balance, the secretary of state agreed with his Inspector that although the area had no special landscape character, the loss of the gap between the surrounding settlements involved physical intrusion into an area of countryside, and contributed to coalescence and loss of independent identity. See details below:Suffolk Coastal DC v Hopkins Homes Ltd and Richborough Estates Partnership LLP v Cheshire East BC,

The secretary of state has rejected a large housing scheme in Hampshire, finding the loss of an area of local green gap to outweigh the benefit of new housing in making his decision on a recovered appeal.
The proposed new housing estate of up to 225 homes plus a 60 bed care home and 40 extra care units, in outline, was acknowledged to contribute to housing supply in an area with a 4.86 year supply and to the choice of housing types meeting different needs, in accordance with NPPF policy.
Since the inquiry closed, judgment was handed down by the Court of Appeal in Suffolk Coastal DC v Hopkins Homes Ltd and Richborough Estates Partnership LLP v Cheshire East BC, which led the secretary of state to decide a local gap policy was relevant to the supply of housing, contrary to the inspector's view in the appeal. Although the policy was out of date, it was accorded significant weight in the decision because it accorded with the NPPF and the housing shortfall was only limited.
In the final balance, the secretary of state agreed with his inspector that although the area had no special landscape character, the loss of the gap between the surrounding settlements involved physical intrusion into an area of countryside, and contributed to coalescence and loss of independent identity. This was contrary to those policies of the NPPF which recognised the different roles and character of different areas, and carried significant weight against the proposal. The loss of best and most versatile agricultural land also carried moderate weight against the proposal in the decision.
Inspector: John Chase; Inquiry

Other concerns that I have about development in NS1 is the increase in traffic if development of GA1 goes ahead. It is intolerable already to encounter the queues of traffic outside my house at 7.30 am speeding towards the roundabout (Coreys Mill) and Church Lane is extremely narrow and rural. I will find any further increase unbearable and will affect my quality of life.

A major concern to me is the destruction of wildlife such as fallow deer, badgers and Pipistrelle bats who have setts in the woods such as Roundwood. [...]

It also concerns me that thousands of houses are to be built so that I will no longer be able to go for walks near to where I live. This will have an adverse effect on my wellbeing and health.

I would like to add that everyone I have met who has been doing Representations has found them very very difficult to do. In one area (GA2) even though Cllr Henry lived there only 75% of residents had heard of what was planned in their area. I know that because I called on some of these residents and leafletted these people as they were "horror stricken" when they found out only a couple of weeks ago. Why were none of them informed by NHDC ? I am surprised and amazed that Cllr Henry nor NHDC had bothered to tell them or tell them they should be making a Representation.

See attachment

See attached

I wish to make a representation at regulation 19 stage of the NHDC Local Plan 2011-2031 consultation.
I want to participate in the Examination Stages and to change the Plan. I object to Plans for East of Luton.
I think that you should not be building houses for Luton. Luton has sold it's houses to rich property developers in Russia and China. If Luton say that they need you to help build them houses, you should make sure that this is true. They might be being greedy and pretending. So they can sell the houses to make money for themselves.

Before Luton were secretly selling the houses to overseas developers, so you can not trust they what they say about the number of houses that they need. I think they have made the house need number higher, just so that they can sell some to rich people around the world. They were hoping that no one would notice.
I do not want to breathe in dirty air. It is bad for my lungs. I need somewhere to play near my house and there will be nothing left.

It is dangerous for school children to cross the road already. Extra cars will make someone get knocked over. You have to run fast to get across the road. Someone could fall and die. There is no zebra crossing.

I think the council is not thinking.
You will be making the place where I live look horrible and ugly forever.

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached