MM 035 / FM 057

(1) We should not be extending the Luton conurbation into Hertfordshire

(2) Once again, there is no reference to infrastructure expansion in these plans. Air pollution is above legal limits yet you plan to add more housing. The local infrastructure - roads, rail, water, sewage is all at capacity. Roads and rail are already saturated - yet there are no plans and indeed, no physical way, to provide additional capacity. This is issue must not be ignored and your plans must be re-evaluated with this in mind.

Delete point (a) ii as the 100 houses stated to be built within the Luton HMA are not required. These houses are part of the 2,100 dwellings earmarked for this Green Belt land solely to meet unmet needs from Luton and which are not required.
Delete point (b) entirely - these houses are not required as Luton's much smaller unmet needs will be met by Central Bedfordshire Council.
Delete point (c) - final bullet point referencing EL1, EL2 and EL3 for 2,100 homes - not needed.

I write on behalf of the parish of Langley in respect of the consultation related to the plan for the West of Stevenage planned developments.

There is considerable concern in Langley about the removal of the Green Belt status for a range of reasons which have been documented in detail.

The latest concern which gives the most objection to date is the proposal written as a plan to "Safeguard" the land marked in the documentation as "Amber". This proposal does not represent safeguarding and is a complete misnomer. It is completely inappropriate to identify this particular area of land as suitable for removal from the very important protection offered by the Green Belt status.

This is a quick email to register my utter objection to the idea of building thousands of houses on green belt land in North Hertfordshire. As a life long resident of this part of the country, it chills me to think the beautiful countryside around us will be lost forever for future generations.

I am wondering why the local plan is yet again quoting over inflated numbers of houses for this region. They clearly do not align with the estimates of the Office for National statistics. This means that you plan on destroying areas of the green belt which will be to the detriment of the local residents but the houses must be for people other than the local residents.
Please can you reconsider these disastrous plans and think of your local residents in any future plans.

I am horrified to read in the NHDC Local Plan, the amount of building that is proposed, much of it on Green Belt land. I know Stevenage Borough Council have no respect for green land and we always been happy to build acres of high-rise monstrosities, but I have always believed that NHDC had a different approach. I thought you cared about the countryside for the valuable asset that it is.
I have lived in Todds Green for over 30 years and during that time we have been constantly fending off applications to develop the surrounding Green Belt land, mainly from the dreaded West of Stevenage proposed development.
Most important is that scientists and ecologists are telling us on a daily basis and in very strong language that trees and green spaces are vital in the fight to combat climate change.
While the rain forest burns and the arctic melts, significantly, trees and vegetation soak up greenhouse gasses and there are not enough trees being planted in Britain today to combat our carbon footprint. We are also told that we are rapidly destroying our indigenous wild life and biodiversity by destroying their habitat. The plants and wildlife that inhabit the countryside.
Mental health practitioners tell us of the vital importance of green spaces for emotional well-being and as an aid to recovery from mental ill health. Something that has become very important in recent months.
These are significant issues of our time and are of the highest importance. Yet we are living in a parallel universe. One where greedy developers and landowners are king. Developers battle to concrete over our countryside. They fell any trees that get in their way on the promise of planting new ones, thin saplings that will take decades to mature, all for the pleasure of pocketing big bucks. Before moving on to destroy some other community’s environment. Nowhere is safe.
Powerful planning authorities are, for the most part allowing this to happen. Nobody makes a stand. Nobody says enough is enough. This has got to stop. In their eyes the Green Belt has no value at all. What happened to the ‘climate emergency’ Mr planning officer! A different plan would be your chance to shine!!
Local people ask, beg that their green spaces are left alone, only to be ignored or called ‘nimbys’. Planning departments never fully understand the impact their decisions have on local communities. Does anyone bother to read these objections/consultations? I doubt it.
This plan is very important. If it goes ahead, then it will be a free for all to build on all the green spaces and land owners and developers will only be too pleased.
We don’t need so much housing for local residents. You simply want to encourage Londoners seeking a more rural life to come here. Except there will not be a rural life to enjoy, it will all be destroyed and under concrete.
Our Local Plan should state that it is an unbreakable rule that there must only be development on brown field sites and NO development of any kind on green land.
At some time, we have got to break into the cycle, so why not make it now, before it’s too late.

See Attached

This email is to register our opposition to the building plans over green belt land in North Hertfordshire.

This land is vital to be retained for environmental purposes for local flora and fauna. Its importance to the well-being of human inhabitants has been demonstrated during the current pandemic; easy and quick access
to natural green space is essential for the physical and mental health of the local residents.

I question how many of any newly built homes would be affordable to local people, or do they just attract those coming in from outside?

There are already infrastructure problems in our region. For example I know many people who have horror stories of trying to get access to over-stretched GP practices, with too many patients on their books; our roads are already too busy for safe use by cyclists and pedestrians and we do not need more polluting vehicles.

Alternative options need to be explored for housing which do not involve evicting the insects, birds, animals and vegetation that have no say as to where they live or the type of homes in which they live.

Village boundaries are proposed as a development restrictive device being inconsistent with (NPPF 11 a) decreasing future flexibility. -- plans should be sufficiently flexible to adapt to repaid change. Imposition of boundaries round communities are planning restriction devices contrary to NPPF 11a
Downward alteration of proposed housing sites in BA, LG, NS, HT, and GA sites are not correct. – These target figures are inaccurate as they do not include inward migration from London correctly nor do they include meaningful affordability uplift (which should be a factor of 1.59 uplift) of local need.
Inclusion of these 2 critical NPPF policy elements would increase the housing need target considerably.
Large Developments on the London commuter rail line will not resolve local housing shortage
Latest surveys 2021 indicate that some 1.6 million (4.6%) of London residents wish to relocate out of London within the next 12 months. If current relocation trends continue most of the dwelling built around the commuter rail line to London will be bought up by London commuters and dwellings will not be available to supply current local housing need.
Every property sale to an incoming UK internal migrant creates another local housing need for the resident who has been replaced by the purchaser from outside North Herts. These displaced members of the public are not recorded in the housing need statistics as needing housing. The ONS outflow count cannot be interpreted as members of the public disappearing from the North Herts area. The recorded annual migrant inflow of 8136 will produce the same number of people looking for another house in the NH area. and is not recorded.
Over the period 2019- 2021 the migration from London to the East of England has far exceeded the presented local housing need figures which was compiled in 2018 and published 2019. Inward flow is now many times higher annually than 8136 quotes by ONS for period to 2018
NPPF para 159 Re housing need – “meets household and population projects , taking account of migration and demographic change
Inserted targets in FM057 are too low

Given so many of the housing sites in this plan are on the green belt and have associated sustainable transport issues, TTL do not consider it appropriate for any land to be allocated to meet needs above the OAN, or which will not be built within the plan period.

See Attached

It is very difficult to go through all these documents, and this comes immediately after local elections.

‘Green Belt’ clearly means NOTHING when phrases like ‘comprehensive review of the Green Belt … Land has been removed from the Green Belt to enable strategic development … and the Green Belt releases necessary to meet housing needs’.

Royston Town Council is pleased to see revised figures showing reduced housing numbers and that many homes are already accounted for in existing developments. Royston has sustained more than its fair share of development.

The policy doesn't appropriately promote self build and custom build housing as required by NPPF Paragraph 61 and the Self-build and Custom Build Act 2015 (as amended 2016), which "Under section 1 of the Self Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, local authorities are required to keep a register of those seeking to acquire serviced plots in the area for their own self-build and custom house building. They are also subject to duties under sections 2 and 2A of the Act to have regard to this and to give enough suitable development permissions to meet the identified demand. Self and custom-build properties could provide market or affordable housing.”

According to Council they have granted permission for 100 self-build and custom build plots to date and there are 317 people on the Self Build Register: Meaning that the Council needs to grant at least another 217 plots over the next three years. However, this policy as drafted is only proposing a further 56 across the plan period. It is acknowledge that a small proportion may come forward via windfall applications but that is highly unlikely to provide the 161 extra required by people on the list currently. It also fails to account for the fact that more people are likely to join the register during the plan period and furthermore The Right to Build Task Force estimate that only 15% of the public are aware of the self build register, meaning the base point is likely to grossly underestimate the need.

I fully understand the need for long term planning to cover housing needs, however, since the Local Plan was launch, so much has changed in terms of population and its expected growth.

From my understanding the ONS have in the past few years revised/advised their prediction for a much smaller growth in population than first thought. The Local Plan was devised around estimates that are perhaps 10 years or older. Added to the estimated reduction in population are two (2) huge factors being ‘Brexit’ and the ‘COVID Pandemic’.

Both these factors have had a dramatic effect on population, especially with large sections of Europeans returning to their natural home lands. COVID has meant populations are working in different ways and has had an effect on traditional commuter areas. Added to this the Green Belt is sacred ground and once lost cannot be regained. The past year, or so, has demonstrated the need for quality green space to assist in peoples well-being. Not reducing these areas.

In and around most/if not all towns, there are multiple ‘brown sites’ that could be developed. Promoting more but smaller developments in the heart of our towns. Which, economically, need all the help than can get, with persons choosing not to use town centres for shopping/entertainment.

Central and Local Government are promoting an eco policy. That surely doesn’t include the permanent destruction of Green Belt sites that are not only used by humans but are also home to thousands of plants, animals, birds and insects that form part of this delicate landscape.

So I respectfully request we hit the ‘stop’ button and re think the local plan to take into account the expected reduction in population numbers - and thus save the Green Belt.

In point g., what does the phrase “up to at least” mean? e.g. “up to” or “at least”?

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

See Attached

See Attachments

See Attached

See Attached

The position of the many people supporting the Save Our Green Belt group remains unchanged, despite the further modifications implemented and consulted upon now.

1. It is clear from these modifications that the population increase envisaged has not evolved and that the provision of New Homes will result in a significant oversupply.
2. As a consequence of incorrect MHCLG housing targets as confirmed by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the target number of homes is at least 4 times and possibly 5 times the number actually required.
3. The decision to leave the additional 5,500 homes to the west of Stevenage safeguarded and not bring them forward in the first instance despite their close proximity to a major Town and consequent established urbanisation, has placed unnecessary pressure on many Villages, relied upon to infill in completely unsustainable locations, to support an irrelevant five year housing supply plan, which is totally unjustified.
4. In the age of the Covid pandemic, poor air quality and the growing need for climate change, there remains little justification in removing land from the protected Green Belt to build homes to support 90% of your intended development options.
5. As a consequence of the changing mood in government, society and the forgoing facts, the development of the “Villages for Growth” and those areas east of Luton are entirely incorrect and unjustified and therefore should be completely removed.
6. There are many other facts and objections raised previously by our group that remain unresolved by your modifications despite bringing those to the attention of the NHDC and the Planning Inspector previously.
We await the decision of the Inspector where it is hoped that common sense will prevail, failing which a statutory review will be requested.

See Attached

See Attached

The attached document identifies points in the text that in our view need to be clarified for soundness of the Local Plan. These points are offered as comments rather than by way of objection or approval. As required, the comments apply to the proposed changes shown in bold, red style and the immediate contexts that affect, and are affected by, the meanings of the proposed modifications.

The document is in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) and each comment is marked via two kinds of annotation:
• highlighting of the words referred to, unless that's an entire paragraph, and
• a 'speech bubble' to state our suggestion or query about the item.

See Attached