Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

This is a Green Belt site. No real exceptional circumstances have been put forward for the removal of this status.
A quick glance at the site boundary suggests KB1 is the most densely populated of the 3 main sites. How does this relate to the sympathetic and lower density requirements in NHDCs notes in the context of the adjacent Deards End Lane Conservation Area?
KB1 and KB2 are both separated from the village High Street (B197) by the railway. There are 3 bridges, all of which have a dog-leg making it one vehicle at a time. The northerly one at Deards End Lane is a scheduled monument with a weight limit leading to a single-track lane through a Conservation Area. Passing is achieved by pulling into residents' private drives. The centre bridge has a height restriction and leads to a road limited to single-track stretches by daytime commuter parking.
The southerly bridge is height-limited and leads to residential roads, another Conservation Area and ultimately another single-track road. There is no viable access for construction traffic from the B197, and the extra car journeys from the proposed new dwellings would considerably increase the congestion into the village from the West.
The land at both KB1 and KB2 abut the A1(M) motorway. Aren't there government guidelines against this?
The B197 through Knebworth High Street parallels the A1(M) and because of daily congestion on the motorway, it is the preferred route into Stevenage for many drivers and often heavy vehicles as well. It is therefore always congested itself. We can't cope with more local traffic. No proper traffic management survey has been carried out prior to this proposal.
There are concerns about drainage and these have been mentioned in the proposals, particularly the capacity of the current sewerage arrangements. As for surface drainage, Knebworth, being relatively low-density, survives mostly or wholly on soakaways. The water from KB1, combined with the run-off from the motorway will need extensive new drainage or it will flood the railway cutting or the golf course, both of which are down slope from there. KB1 contains a spring, which doesn't seem to been mentioned either.
The proposals for Knebworth contain no commercial proposals to sustain local employment. In fact, the reverse, as KB3 is currently a busy local business, now destined for housing.
There are no firm proposals for Secondary education.
Many local services such as the local surgery are over-stretched.
The Local rail company are proposing reductions to the services to Knebworth. A high proportion of the new population on the proposed Knebworth sites will be commuters, as the buyers of these proposed properties won't be able to afford to work locally. This is bad.
It is reported that developers and speculators are holding enough land locally to satisfy our housing needs for many years. Surely it is better to develop this land instead while a New Town is planned. I am told that land has been proposed for this, and it is certainly supported by many local politicians, including our MP.

This is a Green Belt site. No real exceptional circumstances have been put forward for the removal of this status.
A quick glance at the site boundary suggests KB1 is the most densely populated of the 3 main sites. How does this relate to the sympathetic and lower density requirements in NHDCs notes in the context of the adjacent Deards End Lane Conservation Area?
KB1 and KB2 are both separated from the village High Street (B197) by the railway. There are 3 bridges, all of which have a dog-leg making it one vehicle at a time. The northerly one at Deards End Lane is a scheduled monument with a weight limit leading to a single-track lane through a Conservation Area. Passing is achieved by pulling into residents' private drives. The centre bridge has a height restriction and leads to a road limited to single-track stretches by daytime commuter parking.
The southerly bridge is height-limited and leads to residential roads, another Conservation Area and ultimately another single-track road. There is no viable access for construction traffic from the B197, and the extra car journeys from the proposed new dwellings would considerably increase the congestion into the village from the West.
The land at both KB1 and KB2 abut the A1(M) motorway. Aren't there government guidelines against this?
The B197 through Knebworth High Street parallels the A1(M) and because of daily congestion on the motorway, it is the preferred route into Stevenage for many drivers and often heavy vehicles as well. It is therefore always congested itself. We can't cope with more local traffic. No proper traffic management survey has been carried out prior to this proposal.
There are concerns about drainage and these have been mentioned in the proposals, particularly the capacity of the current sewerage arrangements. As for surface drainage, Knebworth, being relatively low-density, survives mostly or wholly on soakaways. The water from KB1, combined with the run-off from the motorway will need extensive new drainage or it will flood the railway cutting or the golf course, both of which are down slope from there. KB1 contains a spring, which doesn't seem to been mentioned either.
The proposals for Knebworth contain no commercial proposals to sustain local employment. In fact, the reverse, as KB3 is currently a busy local business, now destined for housing.
There are no firm proposals for Secondary education.
Many local services such as the local surgery are over-stretched.
The Local rail company are proposing reductions to the services to Knebworth. A high proportion of the new population on the proposed Knebworth sites will be commuters, as the buyers of these proposed properties won't be able to afford to work locally. This is bad.
It is reported that developers and speculators are holding enough land locally to satisfy our housing needs for many years. Surely it is better to develop this land instead while a New Town is planned. I am told that land has been proposed for this, and it is certainly supported by many local politicians, including our MP.