Policy SP19: Sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 - East of 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 -
The current road infrastructure will not cope, its already overloaded and gridlocked most days. There are not enough amenities to support more people. Local schools will be expected to cope with overcrowded classrooms. Yes we have a large Asda on our doorstep but its the only supermarket around this part of Luton and is always busy as people through out the area travel to it. Please don't destroy our beautiful green belt countryside when there is scope in brown field areas for development.

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 housing needs should be met from brownfield sites in Luton . Any development of Mangrove and Cockernhoe should be modest and retain their character as rural 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 -

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 -
All the reasons mentioned above especially jnfrastructure.

Why destroy a beautiful area of green belt land which is enjoyed by many in the area when there are other more suitable non-green belt areas available.

I strongly object to this proposed residential development for the following reasons:
*This proposal would destroy a large amount of North Hertfordshire's Green Belt land, including large swathes of prime countryside which is designated of special significant landscape value. Government policy on Green Belt land is completely ignored in this proposal. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.
*In March and October 2014, the Government updated its online Planning Practice guidance on the policies in the NPPF. This makes it very clear that unmet housing need in a particular area is unlikely to meet the "very special circumstances" test to justify Green Belt development. It also confirms that local authorities have the ability to "safeguard their local area against urban sprawl and protect the green lungs around towns and cities". The government said that it wanted to make planning policy clear that housing need does not justify the harm done to the Green Belt by inappropriate development. This development does not meet the "very special circumstances" test and would seriously harm the Green Belt.
*North Hertfordshire District Council seem intent on allowing their land to be used for building a large number of houses for Luton's alleged unmet housing need, but there is evidence available which clearly indicates that they are not required. .
*If this development went ahead, the ancient villages of Mangrove Green and Cockernhoe would be swamped and lose their individual identity and destruction of local community values
*There will be a devastating impact on wildlife in the area.
Green spaces are essential to the health and well-being of the population but this proposal would mean that access to the countryside for relaxation, recreation and tranquillity will be severely reduced. Many miles of country footpaths enjoyed by many and not least including Luton residents will be concreted over. Plans for green areas within the development will not compensate for this huge loss of green spaces.
*The road infrastructure in the area is already unable to cope with current levels of traffic. Roads into Luton, Luton airport and those which access the M1 are gridlocked at certain times of the day at present. This will be further exacerbated if this development went ahead.
*There are already long tailbacks of vehicles at both the Luton and Hitchin ends of the A505 with frustrated drivers taking to inadequate country lanes to try and avoid the worst bottlenecks. This continues through this part of Luton and towards the motorway. Further development will significantly exaggerate this, increasing danger to pedestrians and the many local school children who walk to school.
*Many local roads in the vicinity of the proposed site are narrow country lanes with single track stretches and they too will be unable to cope with increased traffic, particularly public transport vehicles and large delivery vans and lorries which will be required to serve the development.
*The proposals on transport infrastructure in the application do not do enough to assure us that they will mitigate or improve the problems outlined here. Further independent assessment and research should be undertaken before outline planning permission is granted.
*Local schools at Cockernhoe and Wigmore are already oversubscribed. The application does not indicate where the additional children will be educated.
*Emergency services will struggle to access and serve the community.
*There are no realistic plans for increased provision of essential services such as GP surgeries, hospitals, emergency services, police and adequate public transport. The number of dwellings in this proposal means that all these services will require more resources.
*This proposal is for 660 dwellings. This is an overwhelming number for such a small area. A development of this size in such close proximity to an expanding airport with its associated noise and pollution will not provide a good, healthy lifestyle for the residents.
Ancient bluebell woods will be completely over-run and risk destruction by additional residents new to the development.
I walk and cycle in this area regularly with my family, to enjoy fresh air and beautiful open countryside to maintain my health fitness.
Do not let it be destroyed.
I sincerely hopes that these objections will ensure that this application is rejected

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 -
No one affected in this area wants nor supports the local plan. The homes can be built elsewhere or in luton itself as it is lutons unmet need.
Stop all of this development suggestion on our green belt.

There is no need to destroy the green belt land when there is enough brown field land. Ruining the countryside, and wildlife habitats is a horrendous idea. Luton doesn't need more housing, there is enough and the place is over populated already.

As a resident in Wigmore I would like to OBJECT to NHDC building plan for new houses on green belt land East of Luton.

I would like to raise the following points:

Local roads are chocked with traffic at the best of times morning and evening rush hours. The impact of additional traffic due to new housing will only exasperate the issue.

How are local amenities supposed to cope ie. schools ,doctors etc. Will extra amenities be built to accommodate extra housing?

Why should we lose greenbelt land as new developments would swallow up this land between Luton and Cockenhoe which will have huge impact on wildlife and village life in Cockenhoe will no longer exist. Why should local people lose access to green belt area for housing that is completely out of proportion.

Possible council tax rise for Luton residents as NHDC will collect council tax for new housing in Herts.

I strongly object to new housing on green belt land East of Luton as has been suggested brown belt land can be used to ease Luton's housing issues.

I DO NOT WANT GREEN BELT STATUS REMOVED.

I have received a leaflet asking me to object to the NHDC Local Plan to build houses on the outskirts of Cockernhoe, but I approve of the plans.

The area is desperately short of affordable housing and the plans include a considerable amount of Shared Ownership affordable housing.

I also believe it will be a huge boost to the economies of North Herts and Luton and will provide excellent improvements to the road and path infrastructure between Luton and Cockernhoe.

I hope the plans are approved and work can begin soon. I feel it is the only opportunity for families like our's to get on the housing ladder in the area.

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 -
To much of our beautiful countryside is being turned into housing developments. The roads into Luton are horrendous at the moment I can't imagine what the traffic would be like if this went ahead!!!

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 seem to be many empty buildings and areas that need development in Luton. Once these green areas are gone they are lost FOREVER
These green belt areas are for everyone and for everyone's children. Please think about this very very carefully for them

I would just like to add my views to the proposal to build 2100 new homes in the Cockernhoe area

1 ... I find it very hard to see how the road network in the area can cope with over 2100 + extra cars on its roads . The plan shows the traffic being linked with joining the A505 but in real terms the traffic is going to be looking to get onto the M1 by the shortest route possible and that will be through Cockernhoe and the Wigmore estate. The M1 at junction 10 is already a nightmare to use at the best of times especially southbound so putting thousands of extra cars on the roads will certainly produce gridlock . There is also the issue of the Airport , the extra cars will cause major congestion for entering and exiting the airport .
If all the traffic did have to go onto the A505 it would still cause major congestion at the Stopsley roundabout which is already very busy especially in the mornings, this route also being a link to the M1, the Airport and the IBC plant .

2 ...I do NOT understand why this area has been chosen to build on, when there are plenty of brownfield sites within Luton to build on??
If Luton cannot meet its need to build its required amount of housing, why should NHDC have to do it for them??
There is currently a great need for housing which I do understand, but I do think the right areas need to be chosen, there is so much land available in other areas that have so much better road networks and don't have Airports on their doorsteps to consider for

3 ... The area all around Cockernhoe and Tea Green is full of Wildlife and Natural beauty but sadly this has not been taken in account at all in the plans Deer run freely through the woods and there are plenty of protected species that live in this area

4... Whilst I understand the need for extra housing, is it not over the top to build 2100 new houses in this one area?? A build of half that size would still be a sizeable build

I would welcome a reply to my points

I wish to object to Section EL1, EL2, EL3 Land east of Luton as I believe there are several areas where the 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 Government's criteria of "Except in Exceptional Circumstances". Luton's unmet need is NOT an 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 Hertfordshire 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: "This transport modelling includes the alignment of the proposed spine road through that development site and Luton Borough Council 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" - "Newly constructed relief road linking Luton Road with Chalk Hill - is this the spine road?
However NHDC state on p.72 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 or 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.
Please acknowledge receipt of my representation.

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 infrastructure is clearly not there. Ever sprawling urbanization is destroying greenbelt land. There are plenty of brownfield sites which have not been exploited fully. Most worrying is the trend by private developers to provide executive style homes which encourage more people from outside the area. They do not address the need for affordable housing for local people. It is very short-sighted and greedy. Once these areas are lost, they are lost forever. We need to protect our greenbelt and the wildlife for future generations to 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:

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. The areas mentioned above are 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.

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:

a) Crawley Green Road and Eaton Green Road are backing up over 750 metres at their junctions with Airport Way during rush hour (morning and evening), 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 that we have witnessed year-on-year, currently 12.75 million (2015) with a projected increase per year to 22 million by 2030 this is set to worsen. Stockingstone Road and the A505 suffer equally.

b) The traffic survey carried out in 2015 was not done to industry standards i.e., for one month and also the results of the 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 that the council has declared there is no money to develop.

c) In the shorter term the projected airport development/business park/light industry will attract a further 7000 employees (ref. LBC). The roads cannot cope with this increase in vehicles.

d) 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 as well as to seek access to Hitchin and Stevenage through Offley.

The paths and woodlands are used by villagers and people from neighbouring Luton as a leisure area for walking, running, cycling, dog-walking and horse riding. These areas 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 this proposed development.

This area is teeming with wildlife (deer, owls, birds of prey, bats, etc.) all of which will be displaced. Wildlife corridors are no substitute.

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.

Infrastructure provisions and transportation feasibility for EL1, 2 and 3 are inadequate.

Unmet Housing Need figures claimed by Luton are unsound. During an Executive Committee Meeting, LBC asked NHDC to cooperate with them by commissioning another Strategic Housing Management Assessment. Under Duty to Cooperate, NHDC has responsibility to respond to the request. The Brexit result is an additional reason why a new SHMA is required. NHDC must participate to ensure the numbers given to them are accurate, sound, based on robust evidence and intended to homes for local people only.

Can both Hertfordshire and Luton's local authority guarantee that all the houses they want to build, will go to local people and not overseas investors?

I refer to the points raised by my colleague Allan White's, "Looking for a flat in Luton?
Go to China, or Russia..!!"
[Article by Allan White http://www.allanwhiteluton.uk/Luton_sold_in_China.html]

Allan writes: "In a shocking discovery new properties not yet built are already advertised for sale both in CHINA and in RUSSIA. Developers were granted planning permission to build 359 student rooms, 65 one bedroomed and 65 two bedroomed apartments. Before building has begun ALL properties are being offered to overseas investors off-plan. Details of 'guaranteed returns on investments' are included in the description to both Chinese and Russian investors.

Despite an overwhelming need for social and affordable housing in Luton, property agents, Luton's Labour controlled council and the Conservative government have all chosen to aim for profit rather than commit to local needs."

This area needs exploring, as I am sure NHDC and Inspectorate will agree.

I am writing to strongly object to the NHDC Local Plan 2011-2031.

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 greatly impact on all of Luton; Wigmore, Stopsley, Eaton Green, and even Round Green, Stockingstone Road, and even the over-stretched Luton and Dunstable Hospital! I believe it will also greatly impact on traffic through to Hitchin and beyond, which is already vastly congested at peak periods.

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. 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: 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 feel very strongly that there is more than sufficient brownfield land available that could be used ,before creating SUCH disruption to this very small environment ...please please look long and hard before approving this devastation ....

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 journey to work via Crawley green Road and stockingstone is already nearly unbearable. I would invite the inspector to join me on my excruciatingly slow journey. I would like the opportunity to meet the inspector to discuss this, and would appreciate the opportunity to be present in any future meetings. We are a small community who actually interact with each other and join together to walk dogs in the surrounding green belt, this is there for a reason. A so called unmet need is not the exceptional circumstances required to change green belt status. Please please consider the adverse effects that the additional traffic, congestion of roads and loss of the countryside that is enjoyed by so many, particularly those from Luton. This development will alienate residents of Mangrove, Cockernhoe and Tea Green from the rest of North Hertfordshire. Not the aim of a well thought out local plan.

I strongly object to this proposed residential development for the following reasons:
* This proposal would destroy a large amount of North Hertfordshire's Green Belt land, including large swathes of prime countryside which is designated of special significant landscape value. Government policy on Green Belt land is completely ignored in this proposal. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.
* In March and October 2014, the Government updated its online Planning Practice guidance on the policies in the NPPF. This makes it very clear that unmet housing need in a particular area is unlikely to meet the "very special circumstances" test to justify Green Belt development. It also confirms that local authorities have the ability to "safeguard their local area against urban sprawl and protect the green lungs around towns and cities". The government said that it wanted to make planning policy clear that housing need does not justify the harm done to the Green Belt by inappropriate development. This development does not meet the "very special circumstances" test and would seriously harm the Green Belt.
* North Hertfordshire District Council seem intent on allowing their land to be used for building a large number of houses for Luton's alleged unmet housing need, but there is evidence available which clearly indicates that they are not required. .
* If this development went ahead, the ancient villages of Mangrove Green and Cockernhoe would be swamped and lose their individual identity and destruction of local community values
* There will be a devastating impact on wildlife in the area.
Green spaces are essential to the health and well-being of the population but this proposal would mean that access to the countryside for relaxation, recreation and tranquillity will be severely reduced. Many miles of country footpaths enjoyed by many and not least including Luton residents will be concreted over. Plans for green areas within the development will not compensate for this huge loss of green spaces.
* The road infrastructure in the area is already unable to cope with current levels of traffic. Roads into Luton, Luton airport and those which access the M1 are gridlocked at certain times of the day at present. This will be further exacerbated if this development went ahead.
* There are already long tailbacks of vehicles at both the Luton and Hitchin ends of the A505 with frustrated drivers taking to inadequate country lanes to try and avoid the worst bottlenecks. This continues through this part of Luton and towards the motorway. Further development will significantly exaggerate this, increasing danger to pedestrians and the many local school children who walk to school.
* Many local roads in the vicinity of the proposed site are narrow country lanes with single track stretches and they too will be unable to cope with increased traffic, particularly public transport vehicles and large delivery vans and lorries which will be required to serve the development.
* The proposals on transport infrastructure in the application do not do enough to assure us that they will mitigate or improve the problems outlined here. Further independent assessment and research should be undertaken before outline planning permission is granted.
* Local schools at Cockernhoe and Wigmore are already oversubscribed. The application does not indicate where the additional children will be educated.
* Emergency services will struggle to access and serve the community.
* There are no realistic plans for increased provision of essential services such as GP surgeries, hospitals, emergency services, police and adequate public transport. The number of dwellings in this proposal means that all these services will require more resources.
* This proposal is for 660 dwellings. This is an overwhelming number for such a small area. A development of this size in such close proximity to an expanding airport with its associated noise and pollution will not provide a good, healthy lifestyle for the residents.
Ancient bluebell woods will be completely over-run and risk destruction by additional residents new to the development.
I walk in this area regularly with my family , to keep fit around the footpaths and lanes around Cockernhoe, Mangrove and Putteridgebury.
Do not let it be destroyed.
I sincerely hopes that these objections will ensure that this application is rejected

I object to North Herts District Council's Local Plan 2011 - 2031 as follows.
I object to NS1, GA1and GA2 proposed housing for Stevenage expansion into Hertfordshire Green Belt; EL1,EL2 and EL3 proposed housing for Luton overspill in to Hertfordshire Green Belt; BA1 proposed near doubling of the town of Baldock into Green Belt land; HT1 proposed incursion into Green Belt bringing Hitchin within a stone's throw of Letchworth. It is against Government policy to build on Green belt land unless "very special circumstances" pertain (see Appendix 1). Nowhere in the Local Plan are any "very special circumstance" identified. The Green Belt was expressly put into place to curb urban sprawl. The siting of these proposed developments, mostly adjoining already existing estates is typical of the urban sprawl long discredited by town planners for its poor environmental impact and weakening of community. Several hitherto distinct village communities such as Cockernhoe, Gravely and Bygrave will be either absorbed. The Green belt promotes physical and mental health by providing recreational space. It is vital for biodiversity, especially when 60% of British wild species are in decline. Up to the present, NHDC has a good record of management of the Green belt. In its Biodiversity Action Plan of 2005 it pledged to protect it (see Appendix 2). This measure, having had no formal modifications since, is deemed to be still in force. Therefore I question the legality of NHDC's proposed flagrant disregard of it.
The site LG1 is ancient cultivated land dating back to medieval times and probably far beyond. Its ditches, banks and hedges are artefacts of early agricultural systems of archaeological significance. There are a number of pollarded oak trees estimated to be over four centuries old. These features carry their own biodiversity which has evolved over the same time-span. The richness of biodiversity is also the result of soil diversity, generated by the particular mix of sand, gravel, chalk and boulder clay laid 500,000 years ago in the last glaciations and known to geologists as 'The Letchworth Gravels'. NHDC has played its part too, cutting down the use of agri-chemicals and encouraging wide field margins. 114 bird species have been recorded, 28 of which are endangered, together with Great Crested Newt, Brown Hare, Common Toad, Polecat and 3 rare butterfly species (see Appendix 3). There is a House Sparrow roost of over 300 birds, the biggest in the county which is now under consideration for a designation of protected status. There is in increasing currency an idea that land lost to the Green Belt can be balanced by new Green belt designation elsewhere. Quite apart from the fact that there is no spare land in North Herts for such new designation, an eco-system such as that of LG1 cannot be moved as its centuries of evolution has been specific to that site.

I object to site LG1 because of the threat it poses to the unique heritage of Letchworth. This heritage is that of the world's first garden city, embodying influential principles of town planning and social welfare. Proximity to the open countryside was one of them, to which end the founding father, Ebenezer Howard, proposed to limit the population to 32,000 (thereby limiting the footprint of the town) (see Appendix 4). He further stated nowhere on the urban boundary should be more than 15 minutes walk from the town centre. Such principles have already been infringed but this is no reason to abandon the spirit of them; there is still a heritage to be preserved if tourists and visiting students of town-planning from all over the world are not to be disappointed. Another principle was the town should be self-sustaining, in the sense that the population would work locally, so housing and industry were carefully balanced. Rather than use the opportunity to restore this balance, the Local Plan proposes to upset it further. With the increase in population generated by LG1, plus the change of use from industrial to residential of many of the smaller sites in the town under the Plan, the percentage of residents employed locally will sharply decrease. Letchworth will become predominantly a dormitory town with all the weakening of community that entails. The increase in commuter numbers will cause insuperable problems for road infrastructure as Letchworth's narrow roads were designed for low car use. In a self-sustaining town everybody could walk to work or school. The crucial routes from LG1 into the town centre and station are already bottlenecks: narrow roads lined with grass verges and specimen trees, some rare, which cannot be removed for road widening without completely destroying the distinctive garden city ambience.

I object to site LG1 because of the circumstances of its proposed sale by the owners. The owners, Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation, propose to abdicate its responsibilities to protect and preserve the site. The Foundation was set up by Parliament in 1993 to continue the town's development by Ebenezer Howard's the principles, of which the Green Belt was one - the world's first Green Belt. The sale of this land is a betrayal of principle by those whom Parliament has charged to be its protector. The sale of the land could be (and should be) open to legal challenge.

I wish to object to the development site LG6. This land was compulsorily purchased by Letchworth Urban District Council as part of the Jackman Estate land. The Inspector at the time stipulated that it should be left as a Garden City-style green space. NHDC now wants to forget this decision, together with its own Biodiversity Action Plan (2005) which identified the same piece of land as an Urban Wildlife Site to be protected.
I wish to oppose the LG10 which would nearly double the number of households using Croft Lane, part of Norton old village. The pond at Norton is a breeding area for toads and other species which make their way to the pond inevitably crossing local roads especially Croft Lane. Doubling of the traffic would risk wiping them out.

Appendix 1

Extract from Hansard 15.7.2016
Green-belt Land
Next


Share this debate
18 July 2016
Volume 613
* Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Share this contribution
16. What his Department's policy is on the building of houses on green-belt land. [905899]
* The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)

Share this contribution
The Government are committed to the strong protection and enhancement of green-belt land. Within the green belt, most new building is inappropriate and should be refused planning permission except in very special circumstances.
* Philip Davies


Share this contribution
I welcome the Minister to his post, although I am sure he is disappointed to no longer be my Whip.
My constituents in Burley-in-Wharfedale, and other villages such as Baildon and Eldwick, to name but a few, are facing planning proposals for green-belt land, with 500 houses proposed for Burley-in-Wharfedale alone. Surely the whole point of the green belt is that it should not be subject to housing, and particularly not until all brownfield sites in the district have been built on. My constituents do not trust Bradford council to look after their interests, so they look to the Government to protect them. What can my hon. Friend do to protect their interests and stop that building on the green belt?
* Gavin Barwell

Share this contribution
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and wish his new Whip the best of luck.
If he looks through the national planning policy framework, he will see a clear description of what development is appropriate on the green belt, and a strong presumption that inappropriate development is harmful and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
* Mr Speaker

Share this contribution
The Whip will certainly need to be a natural optimist.

Appendix 2

North Hertfordshire District Council Biodiversity Action Plan (2005)
Foreword
Diverse rural and urban landscapes, their integral habitats and wildlife, still make North Hertfordshire a very special place in which to live and work. However we should not become complacent, for all is not well. Many changes, some quite dramatic and others very subtle, continue to degrade local habitats, reduce the diversity of wildlife and threaten the qualities of our surroundings.
The importance that your Council places upon the environment that we share, not least with many important facets of wildlife that indicate its health, is clearly outlined within its corporate vision. Its priorities promote conservation of our historic towns and rural settlements together with protection of the countryside.
In the wake of national and international concerns about environmental degradations together with loss of biodiversity, including the tenet to 'think globally, act locally', the Council initiated measures to effect positive local conservation to both habitats and species. Detailed studies and correlation of holdings of data have facilitated a timely overview that elucidates the ranges and status of the District's wildlife and wild places, and have facilitated production of this, our very own Local Biodiversity Action Plan.
With policies and evolving programmes towards effective conservation of the environment we share, the North Hertfordshire Bio-diversity Action Plan meets criteria of the Council's vision and priorities. However, these can only be really workable if each and everyone of us share in the many challenges and commitments required to ensure appropriate care for our surroundings, whether it be in town or countryside
Your Council will lead these challenges but there will be opportunity for all of us to be involved, not least toward education at all levels, joining partnerships and actively supporting the care that our urban and rural countryside needs and deserves.
Local Actions make Global Changes
Leader North Hertfordshire District Council
Councillor F.J. Smith

Appendix 3
BIODIVERSITY OF SITE LG1
Red-listed species
(Red -listed species have the highest conservation priority. In addition, where indicated SAP, some are subject to national Species Action Plans )

Skylark (SAP)
Lesser Redpoll
Common Linnet (SAP)
Cuckoo
Corn Bunting (SAP)
Yellowhammer (SAP)
Reed Bunting (SAP)
Yellow wagtail
House Sparrow
Grey Partridge (SAP)
Dunnock
Common Bullfinch (SAP)
European Turtle Dove (SAP)
Common Starling
Song Thrush (SAP)
Northern Lapwing (SAP)
Woodcock
Grasshopper Warbler
Fieldfare Redwing
Mistle Thrush
Nightingale
Whinchat
Grey Wagtail
Bittern
Red Kite

A further 20 or so species found on the site are amber-listed: unfavourable status in Europe

Other red-listed fauna found on Local Plan site LG1
Brown Hare (SAP)
West European Hedgehog
Polecat
Common Toad
Great Crested Newt (SAP)
Small Heath butterfly
Small Blue butterfly
Wall butterfly

INFORMATION: Brian Sawford: NHDC Countryside Officer (Retd), Curator of Natural History for North Herts Museums Service (Retd).
:Trevor James: Curator of Natural History for North Herts Museums Service (Retd), Director of Herts Biological Records Centre (Retd).
Appendix 4

GARDEN CITIES OF TO-MORROW
Ebenezer Howard
Garden Cities of To-Morrow (London, 1902. Reprinted, edited with a Preface by F. J. Osborn and an Introductory Essay by Lewis Mumford. (London: Faber and Faber, [1946]):50-57, 138- 147.

Let me here introduce a very rough diagram, representing, as I conceive, the true principle on which all towns should grow, Garden City has, we will suppose, grown until it has reached a population of 32,000. How shall it grow? How shall it provide for the needs of others who will be attracted by its numerous advantages? Shall it build on the zone of agricultural land which is around it, and thus for ever destroy its right to be called a 'Garden City'? Surely not. This disastrous result would indeed take place if the land around the town were, as is the land around our present cities, owned by private individuals anxious to make a profit out of it. For then, as the town filled up, the agricultural land would become 'ripe' for building purposes, and the beauty and healthfulness of the town would be quickly destroyed. But the land around Garden City is, fortunately, not in the hands of private individuals: it is in the hands of the people: and is to be administered, not in the supposed interests of the few, but in the real interests of the whole community.

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 -
Because being a regular cyclist in this area I see many local people walking and cycling within the confines of the proposed developments. This development will not only curtail their present leisure activity but their health too whilst I understand the need for new housing the amount of housing that is protected is fat too much.

There is no need to destroy Green Belt land for this development as there is plenty of Brown Field sites for building on. I live in Stopsley & the traffic situation every morning is horrendous. How many roads are there out of Cockernoe? The hole area will be gridlocked trying to get to the M1 the 5a05 the A5 & the roads to Dunstable & Bedford. This is all being ignored by the NHDC page 72 para.222. saying that the level of development can be accommodated without a significant adverse impact on the wider highway networks of Luton & Herts. Who do they think they are kidding. I could go on for hours with my objection but think I have made my views clear. STOP this DEVELOPMENT Now

I am writing to express my deep concern on the potential release of greenbelt land around Cockernhoe.
Greenbelt was designed to stop urban sprawl never has this been more important and relevant. However well architects and planners dress up plans and drawings the loss of this land is immense .
Cockernhoe will be overrun and destroyed. The land has major appeal to the residents in Wigmore as it is an area where than go for walks to clear their mind and enjoy gentle exercise.
these new houses will not in any way help the national housing problem . we need new towns with dedicated infrastructure to cope with our expanding population. more houses mean more cars more congestion more frustration more stress more pressure on doctors more pressure on hospitals more pressure on schools more pressure on everyday life. I am hoping that common sense will prevail and this greenbelt land will be left alone to serve the purpose it was designed for

We would like to register our objection to the East of Luton North Herts District council Local Plan 2013 - 2031.
There are several areas of the proposed development which are a major concern.
Firstly, the land that they hope to build on is designated Green Belt land. As you are aware, Green Belt land is protected "except in exceptional circumstances". In this case there are no exceptional circumstances. We are all aware that there is a need to build homes, but other alternative sites could be used. There are many Brown field sites in the locality that could accommodate the much needed homes and would, in fact, improve the look of the area as a whole. The developers either know about these Brown field sites and consider them less profitable, or have not fully explored the possibilities of building on these sites. Green Belt land is very precious and should not be given up lightly. It improves our lives in a number of ways including of course air quality which is important in this particular area as it is so close to Luton Airport. Furthermore, Green Belt land is there to prevent the spread of urbanization. Luton is already a large built up area. It is important to contain the spread, use the land that is already there and to keep the area around the town green.
Secondly, as someone who has lived in the area for many years, we have seen how the pressure on the infrastructure of the area has steadily increased. In particular, transport has suffered as more and more families have become two or more car owners rather than the one car family of a few years ago. These problems cannot easily be solved. Smaller roads around Wigmore (most are very narrow) and the surrounding area are clogged at peak times. The small roads feed the main roads that lead to the town centre, Luton Parkway Station and the M1 motorway. This is where the problem lies because there is nothing much that can be done about these small roads even if other roads are built. The building of 2100 homes will add to the problem and at peak times there would be serious congestion. In addition to this we also have concerns about the broader infrastructure. The schools for example in and around Luton and Hitchin are full or at near capacity and in reality parents do not get a choice of school for their children. The carpark at the one large grocery shop in this area is full at peak times and the Parkway station has only a few spare spaces at most times. It is the little things like this that seem unimportant, but have a big impact on people's lives. The proposed development of 2100 homes (the size of a small town) is so huge it cannot be assimilated into the community that it borders. Whereas, smaller developments, perhaps on Brown field sites, would have less of an impact and therefore would be easier to assimilate.
In conclusion, we object to the plan because of the effect on the environment, the effect on the lives of the people bordering this development, the effect on the infrastructure, particularly transport, the unnecessary removal of Green Belt land status and the waste of Brown field sites which could and should be used instead.
Luton always gets such an unfair bad press. We don't think this plan will in any way help that. Let us prove that it really is a good place to live!

I not believe the sites EL1, EL2, EL3 have been properly thought through.
The local roads can not take the increase in traffic that would be generated.
North Herts would not be the main beneficiary of the development..
The area is currently used for leisure..
Luton should be using its own brown field land first

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 net affect on local traffic between the villages and the transport hub that includes Luton Airport Parkway station, an increasingly busy commuter jump off point, is also almost non negotiable already. This can only get busier if the proposed development takes place - it can already take up to 30' to get to Parkway from Cockernhoe.

Also, and on a personal note, we previously lived in a town and specifically moved to be in the countryside and live rurally - it seems strange that the decision to change the entire experience of our day-to-day lives is out of our hands.

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 facts have been distorted to suit the developers with no genuine or real consideration for local people. Literally thousands of local residents will see an adverse impact on all aspects of daily life, traffic gridlock, school places limited, open countryside destroyed, overcrowding, doctor and dentist spaces and appointments even more difficult to get, supermarket capacity and parking stretched at peak now, getting from one side of Luton to the other long lines of queued traffic, getting to the m1 or a1 long lines of traffic during peak. Village life destroyed. Inappropriate development for the size of the villages. Putting high rise next to copthorne detached houses. Lack of shops and places to eat now let alone with all these extra properties.

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 -
Our lives are already blighted by continual noise and pollution from traffic along Wigmore Lane, no maintenance of existing road system so please stop this development at least until you have dealt with infrastructure.

Objection to Planning application from Crown Estates to Destroy Green Belt East of Luton

We wish to register our objections to this Planning Application for housing to built on Green Belt land East of Luton on the following grounds

1 Absence of special circumstances that warrant the erosion of the Green Belt. The national Planning Policy clearly states that unmet needs are unlikely to outweigh the harm to the green belt. This seems to be being ignored by NHDC. In this case the unmet need could be met in many other brown site locations that are within the Luton Boundary. This could also be assisted if the local council were to look at the boroughs own needs before assisting other boroughs with their housing. Thereby not relying on NHDC who clearly from their own local plan do not require this addition.

2 The removal of the Green Belt leaves this land unprotected and open to further planning applications from developers.

3 Inevitable change to the character of Cockernhoe village in effect urban sprawl, The proposal is completely out of proportion 2100 homes is 14% of the total allocation of houses in the NHDC Local Plan, a 1,025% increase on the 205 houses in the hamlets, placing these, and houses in Wigmore bordering the development in to the middle of an estate.

4 Increase in congestion, and potential on-street parking in the area. The proposed road network is ill conceived and would mean many years of congestion causing even more issues trying to get through traffic for working times. Pure observations tell that these roads are already more than overused.

5 Potential for increase in accidents, due to extra traffic and additional decades of building and infrastructure needs.


6 Proposals are in direct conflict with Luton Borough Councils Local Plan objectives from both an environmental and infrastructure point of view

7 The proposed development gives rise to further difficulties with regard to off site parking for airport traffic, already making use of all surrounding roads.

8 Increase in environmental pollution in the form of noise, light, dust, ground and groundwater issues as more land is concreted over.


9 Impact on the local population with the likely increase that the site and surrounding area will become a magnet for petty crime due to the density of housing and total lack of amenities, i.e. library closure community centre planned closure Doctors already over subscribed to name but a few.

Further detailed reasoning for our objections is included in correspondence submitted to the Council prior to this objection.

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 majority of homes will have at least 2 cars each and the local roads are already congested at peak times without the extra traffic. When there is a problem on the M1 which is nearly everyday the congestion it causes is dreadful to the local roads.