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

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attacment

I am writing to object to the above plan that proposes housing developments on the border between Cockenhoe, Mangrove, Tea Green and Luton. My objection is based on the following grounds:-

* The land is Green belt and should not be developed.
* The existing road network is totally inadequate.
* The infrastructure needed to support this development is not in place.

Full details to support my objections are listed below: -

Green Belt

The green belt was created to stop the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and to safeguard the countryside from encroachment. This latest plan seeks to develop the green corridor between Luton and the villages of Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green and Tea Green. In essence this application is extending the Borough of Luton that clearly, under the rules of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, should not be considered.

Furthermore the green belt seeks to encourage the recycling of existing "brown field sites", currently there are two major brown field sites in the East of Luton which have yet to be developed, the former Vauxhall Motors Car Plant in Kimpton Road and the Power court site off Crawley green road. No plans to develop the Land in North Hertfordshire that boarders Luton should not be considered until both of these sites have been developed and the associated effect on traffic flow and local infrastructure fully understood.
Existing Road Network
The proposed development is reliant on two existing roads for access. (Crawley Green Road and Eaton Green Road), both of these roads were last upgraded in 1950 when the existing county lanes were widened to support Ashcroft and Eaton Green housing estates.

Since 1950 these roads have had to cope not only with the additional traffic created by the increase in car ownership in the intervening 60 years, but also traffic from three additional housing estates, Wigmore Bottom, Wigmore Hall and County View along with two additional commercial/retail estates, Airport Trading Estate and the Wigmore Place/ASDA commercial and retail developments. As a consequence these roads cannot currently cope on a daily basis and at key times it is not un-common for both roads to become gridlocked.

The state of these two roads will be further exacerbated when the brown field sites that I have previously referred to in Kimpton Road and Crawley Green road are developed. In short the existing roads were not designed to cope and cannot cope with the current levels of traffic, therefore any development to the East of Luton in North Hertfordshire should not be considered as it will place further traffic onto Eaton Green or Crawley Green Roads.

Supporting infrastructure

The three secondary schools serving east Luton that will be directly impacted by any development are currently oversubscribed with a similar situation prevailing in the neighboring schools in Hitchin. Even if space could be found in other schools in Luton or Hertfordshire this would require that children be taken to school by bus or car which will only add further congestion to the already overstretched local roads.

With only single track country roads to the east of the proposed development I can only assume that Emergency provisions such as healthcare, policing, fire and rescue would need to be provided by Luton, placing further undue strain on already stretched services and roads. (Land locked local hospital with no scope for development etc.)

Please can you confirm that you are in receipt of this email and that the objections I have made will be considered as part of this review of the North Hertfordshire local plan 2011 - 2031?

The destruction of the green belt goes against national policy. Brownfield plots should be utilised for the unmet housing needs rather than breaking greenbelt and destroying rural communities. Attempting to offset by making the land between Cockernhoe and Hitchin green belt is preventing further development there, for example a new garden city, which go much further in meeting future housing requirements. The tenets of the NPPF do not seem to have been followed in either the proposal to destroy existing Green Belt or the proposal to create new Green Belt (e.g. consideration of the consequences the proposed new Green Belt would have on sustainable development).
I've also been informed a Luton councillor also objected to the proposal stating that it does not meet their housing requirements as any housing development would be on the wrong side of town.
Insufficient traffic infrastructure. Queues along Crawley Green have already notably increased in recent months (presumably as a result of ongoing works at the airport) to the point now leave additional time to get to the station on time. Airport queues having been backing up to the M1. Surveys not being carried out correctly, the current housing proposal for this land is based on a road that doesn't exist and hasn't been proposed while assumptions are being made on 1 car per household. The expansion of the airport and the additional traffic this will bring has not seemingly been taken into consideration either.
Public services are already overstretched. School children are being bused to Hitchin due to a lack of school places in Wigmore, policing is already inadequate as typically come from Hitchin rather than Luton due to council boundary. (Took over an hour for police to arrive to a call out witnessed). With just Asda nearby there are insufficient supermarket facilities to meet needs of new development. Queues back up traffic to the roundabouts, to enter the supermarket and buy fuel (blocking Wigmore lane) while queues at check-out take 20+ mins.
Our neighbour has recently been informed they will be required to install a water meter due to Cockernhoe being in a deprived water area, yet it can seemingly support another 660 (potentially 2,100) houses. Surely this will massively increase the risk of drought and water restrictions in the area.
All visitors comment on the area, the countryside and the wildlife. A walk with friends visiting the area for the first time were amazed by the wildlife, rabbits, pheasant, birds of prey and the 'largest herd of deer they'd seen outside of Richmond park'. All of this seen within an hour. Have even seen owls during the day while walking to the pub.
One of the nicest things about Cockernhoe and surrounding area is the village life and social aspects of the community. The pub and memorial hall run many social occasions and everyone has been very welcoming since moving into the village, with this community life now under threat if the number of houses rises by over 1,000%. The current Green belt is very effectively serving its purposes to maintain the character of Cockernhoe village (check restricted sprawl / prevent merging with neighbouring town / safeguarding the countryside from encroachment)
The single access road already gets cars waiting to pass, the country lanes are not suitable for so many more cars (there would be many more than 1 per house - conservatively from government statistics about 1.3 cars per household could be expected but from local experience in Cockernhoe it is over 2 cars per household)). The additional traffic would be a threat to the walkers and cyclists in the area, both activities we do regularly (this would affect both local cyclists and also those following the Chiltern Way). There are also horses and tractors regularly in the area.

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

1. The proposed development would be a serious encroachment into the existing Green Belt located on the eastern side of Luton. Such extension in addition to being into the Green Belt is into an area of considerable landscape character and its urbanisation would be detrimental to the attractive area lying between the villages of Great Offley, Kings Walden and Luton.

2. The proposed development is an uncoordinated extension of Luton out into open countryside with a lack of defensible boundaries, such that the Local Authority would be under pressure to allow further expansion into open countryside and the Green Belt at times into the future. Such pressure might lead to additional development to the north and east of Mangrove Green with pressure to expand further into the historic area of Putteridge Bury Park.

3. The existing villages of Mangrove Green and Cockernhoe would be completely dominated and absorbed into the overall development area and would lose their rural character.

4. Access to the site is poor. Whilst there are roadways leading to the west, these are only of sufficient quality to absorb further residential traffic once they cross over the boundary into Luton Borough. Whilst this might adequately serve traffic leading to the centre of Luton or via Crawley Green Road to the M1 motorway, the road layout is poorly served for residential occupants wishing to travel to the north and east.

5. The tendency will be for traffic wishing to travel in the direction of Hitchin on the A505 to either travel through residential streets over a distance of 1¾ miles before joining the A505 at Stopsley, or alternatively to take to the local lanes by means of Chalk Hill, Brick Kiln Lane and Stony Lane to access Lilley Bottom some 11/2 miles to the east. The three aforementioned lanes are essentially single track roadways and are quite incapable of absorbing traffic from a development of some 2,103 dwellings, and on the earlier planning application of Bloor Homes under Planning Reference 13/02000/1 there appears to be little in the way of proposed improvement to those roadways.

6. Each of the three roadways lead down onto the Lilley Bottom Road, which runs from the village of Lilley through to Whitwell. Lilley Bottom is essentially a single track road for much of its length with passing places. It is already a well used rat run and is not capable of absorbing traffic from such a sizeable development.

7. It is almost inevitable that those wishing to travel to Hitchin, Stevenage and Welwyn will use Lilley Bottom in spite of any signage to attempt to direct traffic away to the residential areas of Luton. This is because it is a shorter distance and avoids the congestion within Luton.

8. Much of the traffic will eventually find its way onto the A505 dual carriageway and head in an easterly direction to Hitchin. It is well known that during peak times there are significant delays and queues on the western side of Hitchin due to a lack of any bypass arrangements to the town. A development of this size would therefore only exacerbate the situation and is another reason why development should not be considered at this location.

9. The current planning application in respect of Site EL1 makes provision for a primary school, but there is no provision for secondary education. This will inevitably place a strain upon the resources of North Hertfordshire rather than Luton, to which the development is aligned. Existing transport for school children in the rural areas of North Hertfordshire relies upon mini buses, but with the extent of development proposed and the number of children involved, this would be quite unsuitable for Wandon Park. The direct routes from Wandon Park via Chalk Hill, Brick Kiln Lane and Stony Lane are not capable of accommodating full size buses, which will mean that children face a lengthened journey by having to travel into Luton before returning to North Hertfordshire. This is not the mark of a sustainable development.

The LEP generally supports the designations of all 6 Strategic housing sites but considers that small scale employment related activities should be considered for the at least some of the sites, particularly the larger allocations SP14 and SP19; it should also promote the development of sustainable transport modes to serve such development.

EL1, EL2 and EL3 causes substantial harm to the green belt and the setting of communities at Mangrove Green, Tea Green and Cokernhoe. The expansion of the urban sprawl of Luton and the coalescence of these individual settlements is contrary to Section 9 of the NPPF.
Further, development on this high ground to the southeast of Putteridge Bury Park will cause significant harm to the setting and significance of the Registered park through light pollution and noise. as mitigation is not possible. This is contrary to the principles of Section 12 of the NPPF and NHDC Policies HE1 and SP13

1) Luton's unmet need for housing is not an exceptional circumstance justifying removing Green Belt Status. From living in Luton previously, I know a lot of brownfield sites within Luton have not been developed.

2) This development will cause traffic chaos through local villages like Lilley and Offley where commuters will be looking for shortcuts to the M1/Hitchin/Stevenage. The impact has not been studied nor mitigated against.

3) 2,100 homes (14% of the total allocation) is totally out of proportion, swallowing whole hamlets (205 homes) and integrating them into Wigmore which is part of Luton.

1) Luton's unmet need for housing is not an exceptional circumstance justifying removing Green Belt Status. From living in Luton previously, I know a lot of brownfield sites within Luton have not been developed.

2) This development will cause traffic chaos through local villages like Lilley and Offley where commuters will be looking for shortcuts to the M1/Hitchin/Stevenage. The impact has not been studied nor mitigated against.

3) 2,100 homes (14% of the total allocation) is totally out of proportion, swallowing whole hamlets (205 homes) and integrating them into Wigmore which is part of Luton

I am objecting to this proposal on the following grounds:

There are sufficient undeveloped Brown field sites to meet unmet housing need.

The removal of this land from the Green Belt leaves it unprotected from applications from developers.

The local infrastructure surrounding this area cannot cope with the significant increase in traffic flow, air and noise pollution and already over-stretched medical and emergency services arising from any such applications.

The proposal to re-designate this land will also have a devastating and irreversible effect on wildlife.

You have made this really difficult for us to object to the proposed housing development east of Luton- have you done this deliberately to prevent people objecting?
I would like object on grounds of the use of green belt land, infrastructure, wild life and the proposed development of Luton Airport. How many million people do you think you can fit into this part of the country?
The loss of green belt land and the associated wildlife is my biggest concerns

This proposed development on green belt land does not meet the very special circumstances required to build on it as stated in the National Planning Framework.

The development is completely disproportionate to the current villages and communities which will cease to exist.

on average there will be an additional 2 cars per household which will significantly increase traffic on already stretched road infrastructure.

Please see attachments:
Preston Parish Council, sites EL1, El2, EL3
Extract from NHDC meeting 20 July 2016
Letter from Brandon Lewis on green belt land

We object to this proposal based on our concerns on the effect on the roads and the build up of traffic