Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

1.Green belt - why is this an unrecognised term these plans degrade not one but three green belt areas in the same village. The National plan is to protect Green Belt
2. Knebworth is already an extremely congested village and cannot support the current road demands. An additional 663 homes means an additional 663 cars (most likely more than that as there is often more than 1 car per household.) The current road system B197 is not suffice currently so it can not support this substantial proposed increase. When the A1 has an issue all traffic heading North or south comes along the A197 and it is a current major problem which will be exacerbated with all these new homes. Like having the A1 running through the village merging with all villagers trying to get to their homes resulting in major traffic jams. This happens freqently. In addition the development lorries and associated traffic of such large new development sites will be an issue for the feeder roads in the village ( A197) . The parking of current homeowners is under stress this additional population increase will be a step too far and will cause major stress in the local community.
3.Schools/ Doctors. Not enough provision for a substantial increase in population. ( estimated 31% increase with no provision of new services, apart from one junior school).
4. Drainage. Adding so much new hardstanding will dramatically effect the ability of the land to absorb water run off and drainage will be affected which will cause local flooding. Are sewage provisions adequate?
5. Why is there such a concentration of development proposed for Knebworth, a 31 % increase makes this a town no longer a village when all the infrastructure is for a village not a town. Also a village is defined as "There should also be a clear green belt or open fields surrounding its parish borders. " This proposal removes three greenbelt areas.
6. Joined up thinking? Not evident. On the one hand plans to significantly expand Knebworth is in direct contrast to the Govia Thameslink Railway 2018 plan for Knebworth- A downgrading of service which states "There'll be no more fast trains to or from London during peak hours" and "all trains will be slow stopping".

I have several objections regarding the North Hertfordshire District Council Local Plans, these are summarised below:

Overall I am concerned regarding the impact on the whole district and particularly our village, Knebworth. However I am more concerned at the total picture of proposals to further develop neighbouring Codicote and Woolmer Green too. The plans show no infrastructure work, no joined up planning with highways, rail services, local ammenities and contain no reassurances that they provide any benefit to the areas affected. I fundamentally object to residents feeling the need to object rather than planners planning effectively and positively.

Why is there not a proposal to effectively plan with all councils in the area to build a new garden city, which in the long term would improve quality of lives and provide jobs. I understand this has been called for by local MP's and I believe it would gain support not objections from thousands of local people including new residents .

My objections are not personal they highlight issues that will affect current and new residents.

Objections

Errors in the plans and planning process - contravene Government guidance
The number of houses in the plans contravene actual Government Guidance of the number of house built as 30 per hectare but the actual number being built by developers is far greater sometimes up to 40-50 per hectare. The NHDC Local Plan has failed to correctly calculate the number of houses. The fact is that there will be a significant increase in the number of homes built in the Local Plan than have been proposed. Therefore, suggesting the Local Plan has allocated at least 45-50% more land than is required. There is no need to develop on Green Belt sites around villages which do not have the infrastructure. Also there were late additions to the plan and therefore there was not a proper consultation procedure.

Building on multiple Green Belts - the plan conflicts with national Green Belt Policy.
The proposed new sites being built on greenbelt will have impacts on the Countryside and wildlife, loss of trees and nature, impact on public footpaths and quality of village life. As well as natural drainage and soak away.

Transport Infrastructure issues - the plan is not consistent with National Policy Section 4 "Promoting Sustainable transport"
The current road infrastructure is village roads linking villages. To increase housing to the levels proposed in each village has a cumulative effect and stresses this network. One only has to consult sat nav systems to see the current level of congestion on the local roads. With a potential of 50% increase in cars (probably more as each new home will typically have more than one car) doing work and social journeys across the area is a big step change in volume. The costs to councils of repairing already worn out pot holed roads will increase significantly, a short sighted approach is evident. Narrow, often one car width roads, with pull ins can not support this increase in traffic and will become dangerous. There are already choke points on the roads in rush hour and this volume increase will result in areas of complete grid lock. The increases in car pollution too are an issue. The plans include no proposals to improve the road network, which is a major planning shortcoming. That is not to mention the impact of large HGV's, work and trade vehicles that will be associated with such a large building projects. The Clock Towers development caused problems . A specific example of over development is in Watton at Stone where the main road is now used for residents parking and is very dangerous outside the Watton station.

One very important point involves plans /or lack of plans for the railway stations. Knebworth , Stevenage, Watton At Stone and Welwyn North are already at parking capacity and not in walking distance for many of the passengers and the proposed rail plan proposes fewer fast services to London from Knebworth , evidence of no joined up thinking or consultation. There are no plans for any extra parking at Knebworth station which is already not serving the demand. Why would one build houses on a plot right next to the railway, what is needed in the plan is affordable station parking. There is no such provision and why does planning not work with the rail provider to encourage increases in services for a route that is planning to have a significant increase in demand? Specifically over 600 new homes and that's not including the other village increases that use Knebworth station.

Flooding - The plan does not adequately address flooding issues and logically more hard standing and foundations means less run off, more flash flooding .

Thames Water have spent over £4m investigating drainage in the area, these villages have high water tables and are already prone to flooding, building of so many new sites will directly result in more pressure on the village drainage networks, leading to flooding, resulting in more traffic congestion problems , more pollution and road damage.

Village amenities - the plan over stretches current provisions
Local employment will be lost in two of the proposed sites Chas Lowe (Knebworth) and Wyevale (Codicote). In addition many elderly, disabled and families enjoy local community events and value for money dining at Wyevale .Lack of plans for schools, doctors all inadequate for the proposed increase in population. Bridge Cottage Surgery Welwyn, Knebworth and Watton surgeries are already full and it is difficult to secure appointments. I presume Doctors have been consulted..The plans seemingly rely on the currently overstretched services to support new residents which is an issue.

This plan causes more problems than solutions for current residents and indeed future residents.

Under these circumstances I object to the plans , they are not holistic and are muddled. I support a new Garden City or Cities which should be developed to meet future housing needs at the same time developing public services and provide employment opportunities and transport networks for the new community, which is an option not even referred to or explained why its a poorer option than this one.