Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

The entire plan is not sustainable, due to the piecemeal approach of the plan. It is obvious the plan is not a plan as such but rather that NHDC has asked land owners and developers to suggest sites for development with little thought to the problems some sites might create, such as increased flooding, increased gridlock at peak times, especially on the A1 (M) and junction 8 in particular, increased air pollution from standing/slow moving traffic, destruction of established communities, destruction of villages and the character of those villages and the views of local people. For example, any local plan should have the support of the local people - NHDC have been advised in previous consultations on this plan, and in particular site WY1, that the local people do not support 1) removal of green belt in their small villages, 2) developments which are inappropriate in size and scaled (such as site WY1, which is an increase of 100% of dwellings in a very small village) and 3) anything which threatens to increase flood risk, air pollution or gridlock - the plan unfortunately, across many sites, and when viewed along with Stevenage Borough Council's plan, does indeed cause some very serious and irreversible problems for all residents, current and new, with the majority of their proposals in this plan. Green belt is supposed to permanent, and supposed to stop urban sprawl. NHDC's proposals to move the green belt from around site WY1, massively increases the risk of the tiny village of Little Wymondley merging into a mega town of Stevenage and Hitchin (locally known as "Stitchin"). Furthermore, there is no local need to double the size of the village. As well as there being no local need for such a large development in this village, there is also a local fear that such a sizeable development would irreversibly alter the character and social cohesion of the village. We have an excellent community spirit in Little Wymondley, where people know and help each other, and it is a safe environment for people to live, which is why so many of the residents chose to live in a small village, surrounded by Green Belt, which the government led people to believe would always be there. It is worth noting the that the NPPF states there must be the existence of exceptional circumstances to alter the green belt, but none are demonstrated in this plan. Whilst it is recognised that there is a housing shortage in the area, NHDC state in this plan that there are 1,600 households on their housing waiting list so why do we need to build 14,000+??? The existing figure in the plan was created prior to the UK voting for Brexit, where any plans had to take account of the free movement of people throughout the EU. Once the UK is not part of the EU, it is highly likely that this free movement of people will not be a feature of the UK, so any calculations based on this policy, need to be revisited. It is also recognised that there are people not on the waiting list who will require housing in the plan period, such as young adults currently living at home, however, the answer to the housing need, IN A SUSTAINABLE FASHION is to build a new Garden City - NHDC has the land, just not the will, to do this, and yet this solution to sustainable development is not a new suggestions to them and I believe they have now requested the funding for this but fear they won't be able to deliver it within the plan period, but this is not true. There is also no adequate assessment of infrastructure needs in the NHDC plan, instead, the buck is passed to HCC. This is therefore not a positively prepared, justified, or effective plan, and it is not sustainable, nor is it consistent with national policy. In fact, the plan actually contradicts it's own policy SP1, particularly with regard to these comments in the same:

b. Ensure the long-term vitality of the District's villages by supporting growth which provides opportunities for existing and new residents and sustains key facilities;
c. Grant planning permission for proposals that, individually or cumulatively:
ii. create high-quality developments that respect and improve their surroundings and provide opportunities for healthy lifestyle choices;
iii. provide the necessary infrastructure required to support an increasing population;
iv. protect key elements of North Hertfordshire's environment including important landscapes, heritage assets and green infrastructure (including the water environment); and
v. secure any necessary mitigation measures that reduce the impact of development, including on climate change;

The build on site WY1 is in direct contradiction to all the above points. Particularly as it is already in a pollution hotspot and the plan increases standing traffic and gridlock in and through the village, contributing to hight levels of nitrous dioxide and the associated healthier issues. Also, it is worth noting that the site WY1 was previously a landfill site, so who knows what is buried in the ground there and what harm it may cause should it be built on with houses and/or a school? There could be radioactive material buried there which could cause huge health problems in the future.

David Levett opens the plan document with the statement "North Hertfordshire is one of the best places to live in the country and with that comes a unique set of challenges to keep it that way. People want to move here to enjoy our lifestyle, those of us who are lucky enough to live here want to stay" he then goes on to state "That growth needs to be managed and controlled in a way that will protect and enhance the area in which we live and keep it one of the best places to live" unfortunately, nothing in his plan will make Little Wymondley a better place to live - it's residents will be forced to live with a heightened risk of/fear of our homes being flooded, more health issues as we deal with at least twice the amount of passing traffic and a huge increase in standing/queing traffic to get onto the A1 (M), irreversible changes to the character of the community as such a large development will intrinsically change the character of our environment, and a loss of open countryside/green belt, all of which leads to a picture of it being far from a great place to live with a good lifestyle, but rather a miserable existence with our homes and health put at unnecessary increased risk of damage.

IMPORTANT Note - I left the "Soundness test" boxes unticked, as a tick indicates a positive, and I thought ticking them meant "yes, the plan is . . " however I cannot submit my comments if I do not tick the boxes, therefore i have ticked them all to say that the plan does NOT meet any of the soundness tests.

This policy is a contradiction of the plan itself. Site WY1 at Little Wymondley is an inappropriate development, being an almost 100% increase in the number of dwellings in a very small village currently protected by over-development by all land outside the existing settlement being long-standing greenbelt. Not to mention the sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 at Cokcernhoe, an existing settlement of just 205 dwellings, whereby in the plan, it is proposed to completely overwhelm the village by an addition of 2,100 homes. Yet the policy tells us "We support the principles of the Green Belt and recognise the intrinsic value of the countryside. We Will only permit development proposals in the Green Belt where they would not result in inappropriate development" Really? The plan includes doubling the size of villages, and increasing them 10-fold - this is exactly what most people WOULD say is inappropriate development.

This policy states: "Encourage development in locations which enable sustainable journeys to be made to key services and facilities;"
The site WY1 will put increased pressure on an already insufficient motorway for today's volume of traffic (junction 8 of the AI (M)). This junction is already grid-locked at peak hours, and the A1 (M) from junction 9 (Baldock) right into London and beyond into London, is exceptionally slow moving and almost stationary south bound. Site WY1 has no access to trains and the bus service is woeful, so the only option residents have is the car. How building more houses on top of this junction can be classed as "Encourage development in locations which enable sustainable journeys to be made to key services and facilities" is beyond the realms of common sense. Hertfordshire County Councillor Terry Douris already stated in the Mercury Newspaper October 18th 2016 that "Hertfordshire is the busiest county in the country and our roads are under incredible pressure - we have a network of more than 5,000km (3,000 miles) and very high traffic levels, with millions of car journeys and 2.5 times the national average of lorries using our roads." How can building an additional 14,000 homes, potentially another 28,000 cars using this junction, or the A1(M) in Hertfordshire possibly be a sensible thing to do? There is also a significant health risk posed in the increase in air pollution from additional slow-moving/standing traffic. The rest of the commentary in the 'plan' around transport is rather vague, stating that changes will be made, but not stating any specific plan with any details as to how sustainable traffic will be achieved. The plan passes the transport buck to Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) and to the developers. This is not good enough. HCC have just launched a public consultation on the future of transport in our area, stating that they envisage travel times in the local area will increase by 25% in the next few years, and asking the public how to resolve this, so until there is a proper model for how to 'keep Hertfordshire moving', a local plan for increasing the density of population should not be made. Once a sensible expansion plan for the A1(M) is in existence and delivered, then it would make sense to review where houses might go, but a new garden city with it's own transport infrastructure might well be the best solution for the period of this plan. You cannot simply add houses and cars without having a proper plan for how all this additional traffic will move around at rush hour and cater for it, what is clear, is that our current road and rail infrastructure will not cope, and Hertfordshire will not be a great place to live at all, if commuting times are increased by 25% or more.

I object to this development in it's entirety.
1) the land is all green belt. Yet NHDC have failed to specify what exceptional circumstances exist to justify building on greenbelt. So this plan and site is in breach of the NPPF, plus Little Wymondley used to be an excluded village because of it's standing inside the greenbelt, I do not understand why NHDC want to change this?
2) The green belt here has been established and govt says green belt is permanent - there is no justification to build here when all brownfield sites in Hertfordshire have not been exhausted in this plan.
3) the greenbelt at this site helps prevent urban sprawl and the risk of the towns of Stevenage and Hitchin merging into one town, whereby Little Wymondley, the village, would then simply be an area of a mega-town, and not a village anymore
4) The development on this site and the removal of green belt does NOT have the support of the local people, 92% of those who responded to the Neighbourhood plan survey said they want to protect the green belt and would accept 50 homes or less, not 300+
5) Inappropriate - the proposed development of 300+ houses is inappropriate in a village of just 340 dwellings, and where there is an enormous sense of community and safety. An almost 100% increase dwellings would destroy the character and ambiance of the village and lead to a reduction in the quality of life for its residents. A development of this size would not integrate into the existing village and social cohesion would be lost. 50 houses or less would have a chance to integrate into the village and enhance village life, not destroy it.
6) Flood risk - Little Wymondley is classed as a high flood risk area but the Environment Agency. Whilst the plan acknowledges this, and says they would have to make sure the new development would not exacerbate flood risk, it is bound to, as the flooding is largely caused by water run-off from the fields, and once built on this, water that is currently absorbed by the fields would have nowhere to go expect downhill onto Stevenage Road and this would cause more flooding. There must be other sites in the NHDC are which do not have such high flood risk and can be built on? This risk is massively increased when you consider that the proposed site NS1 is also building on a flood risk area and on the area where the water course known as Ash brook also runs through, further increasing flood risk onto Junction 8 of the A1(M) and into Little Wymondley. Plus, Stevenage Borough Council's plan also includes building an industrial estate on Stevenage road, on a field which is a flood plan, which will push even more water into Little Wymondley and cause it to flood. Until NHDC can specify exactly how they will remove the flood risk the site WY1 should be removed from the plan - indeed, Hertfordshire County Council commissioned a report into the flood of February 2014, and yet have yet to do anything to address the issue.
7) Questions over whether the site is contaminated land due to it's historic use as a land fill site - what investigations have been done to test the ground and ensure it is even safe to build on??
8) This proposed site does NOT have the support of the local people of the parish, who stated they wanted 50 houses or less.
9) This proposed site is NOT catering for a local need - there is not a local need for 300+ houses. Most local need is for retirement bungalows, so that the older generations can stay in the village and continue to have their beloved gardens, but free up family homes for the younger generations. There are not 300+ households in the Parish looking for a retirement bungalow.
10) Air quality/pollution - the village was bypassed in recent history with the building of the A602 Stevenage to Hitchin bypass. This was to make the main road through the village safer and also to improve our air quality. Building and additional 300 homes, potentially adding another 600 cars to in village traffic, would negate a lot of the good done by building the bypass, especially when considering that the junction 8 of the A1(M) is already grid-locked at risk hour - additional traffic would increase the traffic volume and standing traffic in the village, polluting our air and causing more health issues for residents.
11) Related to point 10 is the potential of this development to add to commuting misery of those of working age in the parish. Journeys are already slow at rush hour. Combined with Stevenage Borough Council's plan to close a key arterial route through the town and to also cause queues going into 2 rather than the current 8 car parks at rush hour, which will cause grid-lock, additional local traffic in the village as well could see journey times from Little Wymondley increase from 15-20 minutes to an hour plus - and it's only 3 miles away!! The resident's survey of 2015 showed that traffic management was a major concern of most residents.
In summary, this development is in conflict with the NPPF and the wishes of the of the local people - it is also in conflict with creating sustainable transport solutions, and would instead make the existing problems of the A1 and junction 8 much worse. It also has the real potential to ruin the lives of many residents with more frequent and more severe flooding of their homes on a more regular basis.

This policy states: "Encourage development in locations which enable sustainable journeys to be made to key services and facilities;"
The site WY1 will put increased pressure on an already insufficient motorway for today's volume of traffic (junction 8 of the AI (M)). This junction is already grid-locked at peak hours, and the A1 (M) from junction 9 (Baldock) right into London and beyond into London, is exceptionally slow moving and almost stationary south bound. Site WY1 has no access to trains and the bus service is woeful, so the only option residents have is the car. How building more houses on top of this junction can be classed as "Encourage development in locations which enable sustainable journeys to be made to key services and facilities" is beyond the realms of common sense. Hertfordshire County Councillor Terry Douris already stated in the Mercury Newspaper October 18th 2016 that "Hertfordshire is the busiest county in the country and our roads are under incredible pressure - we have a network of more than 5,000km (3,000 miles) and very high traffic levels, with millions of car journeys and 2.5 times the national average of lorries using our roads." How can building an additional 14,000 homes, potentially another 28,000 cars using this junction, or the A1(M) in Hertfordshire possibly be a sensible thing to do? There is also a significant health risk posed in the increase in air pollution from additional slow-moving/standing traffic. The rest of the commentary in the 'plan' around transport is rather vague, stating that changes will be made, but not stating any specific plan with any details as to how sustainable traffic will be achieved. The plan passes the transport buck to Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) and to the developers. This is not good enough. HCC have just launched a public consultation on the future of transport in our area, stating that they envisage travel times in the local area will increase by 25% in the next few years, and asking the public how to resolve this, so until there is a proper model for how to 'keep Hertfordshire moving', a local plan for increasing the density of population should not be made. Once a sensible expansion plan for the A1(M) is in existence and delivered, then it would make sense to review where houses might go, but a new garden city with it's own transport infrastructure might well be the best solution for the period of this plan. You cannot simply add houses and cars without having a proper plan for how all this additional traffic will move around at rush hour and cater for it, what is clear, is that our current road and rail infrastructure will not cope, and Hertfordshire will not be a great place to live at all, if commuting times are increased by 25% or more.