Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

I live in Knebworth and run a professional small business there.
Although my knowledge is strongest for the area Codicote-Knebworth and its links to Stevenage, Hitchin, WGC, St Albans and Luton, the vision for growth is highly necessary for the continuing economic sustainability of North Herts, and the vital provision of homes. However, the impact of the proposed growth at the margins on settlement centres, roads and access demands clearer statement of over-arching obligations of developers.

The Plan demands a clearer and firmer statement of associated infrastructure. Our experience in Knebworth is that these what used to be called "planning gains" are ignored. e.g a second primary school was promised in an earlier development in Knebworth; an excuse was given not to build it, resulting current children have to go to a school in adjacent towns. This Plan promises the 2nd primary school yet again, but only an inadequate one-form entry. This needs to be upgraded to 2-form entry and made an essential requirement in this Plan. I'll comment further on similar need to firm infrastructure requirement primary school yet again, but only an inadequate one-form entry. This needs to be upgraded to 2-form entry and made an essential requirement in this Plan. I'll comment further on similar need to firm infrastructure requirement

The proposed growth effects the borders of several settlements, like my own Knebworth. The growth is welcomed but the Plan omits to specify necessary associated development of the Centres that the Plan recognised are the heart of the growth in economy. For example the Centres in Codicote and especially in Knebworth, are accessed by narrow roads and obscured junctions to the main roads. The growth implies at least a 30% increase in vehicles and traffic flow. In Knebworth access from the west side to the Centre is via two railway underpasses, less than 14 feet and single pedestrian pavement of 2 feet, adequate for single file; we have to walk in the road to pass. Access to the rail station and main pub is via this rail underpass. Unless this "pinch-point" is not improved in parallel to the growth, access to the margins is seriously challenged, enough for the objections to the Plan to be os fraught, that it will threaten the delivery of growth in the timeframe allowed. I can imagine the whole of Old and "New" Knebworth will object on this single unrecognised infrastructure need.

With reservation. The Plan focuses on houses and does not recognise that almost all the settlements, like Knebworth and Codicote, have minimal employment; 90% of households in Knebworth are commuters. Why not assign sites for small business parks, and creative space, as a way of reducing the commuting traffic, and bringing more income directly to the settlements. Furthermore, the Plan should assign space for additional retail and office space in the Centre of Settlements. Knebworth currently has no further space for the shops needed to cater for a 30% increase in population. Please, don't let this Plan ignore parallel development of Settlement Centres.

The Green Belt boundaries, were defined 75 years ago, and, like my belly, that belt needs letting out. The proposal to use Green Belt immediately adjacent to settlements like Knebworth is entirely appropriate. There is leisure and activity countryside immediately adjacent to the proposed development sites, and, sensibly, a huge addition of newly designated very appealing landscape, west of Stevenage, is offered in compensation. It's a good deal. The restrictions imposed by the current boundaries, tighly around Knebworth, for example, have determined that almost available green space in Knebworth have been built on.

But with reservation.
The transport and road infrastructure plan needs to be firmer and clearer and linked to house building. Not to do so threatens delivery. Adding 700 houses to Knebworth is great for economic sustainability, but if Rail, Bus, transport/parking authorities are not obliged to offer their plans simultaneously to integrate safely the houses , the roads, rail services and parking, safe junctions for motor and pedestrian users, the Plan will fail.

With severe restrictions as outlined in previous comments. I recognise that the Plan is vital for North Herts economy, vitality and sustainability, and fear that its weak definition of accompanying infrastructure as someone's else responsibility will result in failure, and our future in settlements like Knebworth will condemned to stagnation. But growth without improved roads and junctions, even a by-pass, will be essential. Don't defer these improvements and don't hive them off for other authorities to dismiss!

We need the houses, but, for goodness sake, define the requirement better for "sensitive design". Don't leave this definition of this to developers. We all know what happens, certainly in Knebworth! That's why residents are always so negative by all, I mean ALL, housing there! If you want to hear a negative response, just wait to my fellow residents.

With the reservations commented on above.

This is the big issue, and yet recommendations are nowhere near firm enough for growth in our Settlement, Knebworth, for example. Lay it on the line! How can the Plan declare there are no "particular" transport infrastructure issues there! Yeah, right!