Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Search representations
Results for Mrs Mary Harris search
New searchObject
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
KB1 Land at Deards End
Representation ID: 1939
Received: 23/11/2016
Respondent: Mrs Mary Harris
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Objection to KB1:
-infrastructure
-proximity of A1M
-noise
-Green Belt
-prime agricultural land for food
-railway bridges narrow,height,weight restrictions
-Deards End Lane railway bridge is historic monument, Conservation area, listed Lutyens properties.
-gridlock Knebworth High Street if accident on A1M
-pollution
-no local industry or proposed job creation-driving or commuting
-trains:full and proposed reduction of fast services
-building in surrounding villages- traffic
-extending fixed village boundaries
-Green Belt corridor between towns and villages
-drains not maintained
-school capacity
-build new town instead
-KB1&KB2-air pollution levels
-KB1&KB2 water run-off and natural springs, flooding
I object to the proposed developments KB1 KB2 KB3 and KB4 at Knebworth for the following reasons:
Knebworth is unsuitable for this large scale expansion because of insufficient infrastructure. The proximity of the A1 M motorway and any expansion on the KB1 and KB2 sites will then exceed the new government air pollution levels. The noise is bad now so sound barriers would be needed making building less viable for builders. Particularly if it is widened as proposed. The proposed dedesignation of Green Belt land for building is unacceptable when prime agricultural land is required to feed our ever growing population. Once built on, the land for agriculture is lost for ever. If more low cost housing is required then why build in one of the most expensive villages. The only people who would be able to afford to buy them would be London commuters as local jobs if any, are not high salaried.
Access to KB1 and KB2 sites will currently have to pass under Gun Lane or Knebworth railway bridges. These bridges are too narrow for vehicles to pass each other as these are dog legged. They are also unsuitable for high vehicles as there is a height restriction .
The Deards End Lane railway bridge has a 7.5 ton weight restriction and is narrow , also it is listed as a historic monument. Deards End lane is narrow and a Conservation area with many listed Lutyens properties . Thus the lane is unsuitable as a cut through to avoid the village.
If there is an accident on the A1M , which is frequent particularly in the winter months, the current knock on effect is a complete blockage through Knebworth high street and all the surrounding roads. This is because Knebworth is on the B197 which is the old great North Road and runs parallel to the A1M. Complete gridlock ensues
which means increased pollution and thousands of wasted man hours.
If we have the proposed 663 dwellings then there will be an extra approx. 1300 cars using the roads and adding to the pollution. Since we have no local industry or proposed job creation all the new residents will be driving or commuting elsewhere to work. The trains are already full when they get to Knebworth and the rail companies are considering reducing the fast rail services from Knebworth
to accommodate other stations.
There is also increased building planned in the surrounding villages so this will also increase traffic. Extending the fixed village boundaries eg Odyssey development and Woolmer Green proposals reduces the traditional Green Belt corridor between towns and villages.
The current drains in Knebworth are no longer maintained, in fact along Park Lane have been tarmacked over, and increased housing will exacerbate the drainage problems. Re KB1 and KB2 the fields adjacent to the motorway are a run off for water from the motorway. Also there are natural springs making it unsuitable for development. The proposals state that wouldn't be a problem. In practice any assurances cannot be relied on as there is flooding in places now and our climate is currently changing to be more extreme.
The current plan to build a single form entry school to accommodate 663 dwellings and possibly about 1300 children is hardly sufficient. What planet do these forecasters live on. The Chas Lowe site should not be developed for housing but for creating a new badly needed surgery and facilities for the village. We have also recently had a small new estate, Oak Tree Gardens, built on the Bulwer Lytton site , the new large retirement home. Also various small developments in the last few years plus infill in every conceivable place. So Knebworth has already played its part in local development. Any more will change the village into a suburb of Stevenage.
If Luton and surrounding need more housing then why build on a more expensive area that few can afford. It is far more sensible to build a purpose built new town with the appropriate infrastructure and employment.
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
KB2 Land off Gypsy Lane
Representation ID: 1940
Received: 23/11/2016
Respondent: Mrs Mary Harris
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Objection to KB2:
-infrastructure
-proximity of A1M
-noise
-Green Belt
-prime agricultural land for food
-railway bridges narrow,height,weight restrictions
-Deards End Lane railway bridge is historic monument, Conservation area, listed Lutyens properties.
-gridlock Knebworth High Street if accident on A1M
-pollution
-no local industry or proposed job creation-driving or commuting
-trains:full and proposed reduction of fast services
-building in surrounding villages- traffic
-extending fixed village boundaries
-Green Belt corridor between towns and villages
-drains not maintained
-school capacity
-build new town instead
-KB1&KB2-air pollution levels
-KB1&KB2 water run-off and natural springs, flooding
I object to the proposed developments KB1 KB2 KB3 and KB4 at Knebworth for the following reasons:
Knebworth is unsuitable for this large scale expansion because of insufficient infrastructure. The proximity of the A1 M motorway and any expansion on the KB1 and KB2 sites will then exceed the new government air pollution levels. The noise is bad now so sound barriers would be needed making building less viable for builders. Particularly if it is widened as proposed. The proposed dedesignation of Green Belt land for building is unacceptable when prime agricultural land is required to feed our ever growing population. Once built on, the land for agriculture is lost for ever. If more low cost housing is required then why build in one of the most expensive villages. The only people who would be able to afford to buy them would be London commuters as local jobs if any, are not high salaried.
Access to KB1 and KB2 sites will currently have to pass under Gun Lane or Knebworth railway bridges. These bridges are too narrow for vehicles to pass each other as these are dog legged. They are also unsuitable for high vehicles as there is a height restriction .
The Deards End Lane railway bridge has a 7.5 ton weight restriction and is narrow , also it is listed as a historic monument. Deards End lane is narrow and a Conservation area with many listed Lutyens properties . Thus the lane is unsuitable as a cut through to avoid the village.
If there is an accident on the A1M , which is frequent particularly in the winter months, the current knock on effect is a complete blockage through Knebworth high street and all the surrounding roads. This is because Knebworth is on the B197 which is the old great North Road and runs parallel to the A1M. Complete gridlock ensues
which means increased pollution and thousands of wasted man hours.
If we have the proposed 663 dwellings then there will be an extra approx. 1300 cars using the roads and adding to the pollution. Since we have no local industry or proposed job creation all the new residents will be driving or commuting elsewhere to work. The trains are already full when they get to Knebworth and the rail companies are considering reducing the fast rail services from Knebworth
to accommodate other stations.
There is also increased building planned in the surrounding villages so this will also increase traffic. Extending the fixed village boundaries eg Odyssey development and Woolmer Green proposals reduces the traditional Green Belt corridor between towns and villages.
The current drains in Knebworth are no longer maintained, in fact along Park Lane have been tarmacked over, and increased housing will exacerbate the drainage problems. Re KB1 and KB2 the fields adjacent to the motorway are a run off for water from the motorway. Also there are natural springs making it unsuitable for development. The proposals state that wouldn't be a problem. In practice any assurances cannot be relied on as there is flooding in places now and our climate is currently changing to be more extreme.
The current plan to build a single form entry school to accommodate 663 dwellings and possibly about 1300 children is hardly sufficient. What planet do these forecasters live on. The Chas Lowe site should not be developed for housing but for creating a new badly needed surgery and facilities for the village. We have also recently had a small new estate, Oak Tree Gardens, built on the Bulwer Lytton site , the new large retirement home. Also various small developments in the last few years plus infill in every conceivable place. So Knebworth has already played its part in local development. Any more will change the village into a suburb of Stevenage.
If Luton and surrounding need more housing then why build on a more expensive area that few can afford. It is far more sensible to build a purpose built new town with the appropriate infrastructure and employment.
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
KB3 Chas Lowe site, London Road
Representation ID: 1941
Received: 23/11/2016
Respondent: Mrs Mary Harris
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Objection to KB3:
-infrastructure
-proximity of A1M
-noise
-Green Belt
-prime agricultural land for food
-railway bridges narrow,height,weight restrictions
-Deards End Lane railway bridge is historic monument, Conservation area, listed Lutyens properties.
-gridlock Knebworth High Street if accident on A1M
-pollution
-no local industry or proposed job creation-driving or commuting
-trains:full and proposed reduction of fast services
-building in surrounding villages- traffic
-extending fixed village boundaries -Green Belt corridor between towns and villages
-drains not maintained
-school capacity
-build new town instead
-Chas Lowe site- use for surgery and facilities
I object to the proposed developments KB1 KB2 KB3 and KB4 at Knebworth for the following reasons:
Knebworth is unsuitable for this large scale expansion because of insufficient infrastructure. The proximity of the A1 M motorway and any expansion on the KB1 and KB2 sites will then exceed the new government air pollution levels. The noise is bad now so sound barriers would be needed making building less viable for builders. Particularly if it is widened as proposed. The proposed dedesignation of Green Belt land for building is unacceptable when prime agricultural land is required to feed our ever growing population. Once built on, the land for agriculture is lost for ever. If more low cost housing is required then why build in one of the most expensive villages. The only people who would be able to afford to buy them would be London commuters as local jobs if any, are not high salaried.
Access to KB1 and KB2 sites will currently have to pass under Gun Lane or Knebworth railway bridges. These bridges are too narrow for vehicles to pass each other as these are dog legged. They are also unsuitable for high vehicles as there is a height restriction .
The Deards End Lane railway bridge has a 7.5 ton weight restriction and is narrow , also it is listed as a historic monument. Deards End lane is narrow and a Conservation area with many listed Lutyens properties . Thus the lane is unsuitable as a cut through to avoid the village.
If there is an accident on the A1M , which is frequent particularly in the winter months, the current knock on effect is a complete blockage through Knebworth high street and all the surrounding roads. This is because Knebworth is on the B197 which is the old great North Road and runs parallel to the A1M. Complete gridlock ensues
which means increased pollution and thousands of wasted man hours.
If we have the proposed 663 dwellings then there will be an extra approx. 1300 cars using the roads and adding to the pollution. Since we have no local industry or proposed job creation all the new residents will be driving or commuting elsewhere to work. The trains are already full when they get to Knebworth and the rail companies are considering reducing the fast rail services from Knebworth
to accommodate other stations.
There is also increased building planned in the surrounding villages so this will also increase traffic. Extending the fixed village boundaries eg Odyssey development and Woolmer Green proposals reduces the traditional Green Belt corridor between towns and villages.
The current drains in Knebworth are no longer maintained, in fact along Park Lane have been tarmacked over, and increased housing will exacerbate the drainage problems. Re KB1 and KB2 the fields adjacent to the motorway are a run off for water from the motorway. Also there are natural springs making it unsuitable for development. The proposals state that wouldn't be a problem. In practice any assurances cannot be relied on as there is flooding in places now and our climate is currently changing to be more extreme.
The current plan to build a single form entry school to accommodate 663 dwellings and possibly about 1300 children is hardly sufficient. What planet do these forecasters live on. The Chas Lowe site should not be developed for housing but for creating a new badly needed surgery and facilities for the village. We have also recently had a small new estate, Oak Tree Gardens, built on the Bulwer Lytton site , the new large retirement home. Also various small developments in the last few years plus infill in every conceivable place. So Knebworth has already played its part in local development. Any more will change the village into a suburb of Stevenage.
If Luton and surrounding need more housing then why build on a more expensive area that few can afford. It is far more sensible to build a purpose built new town with the appropriate infrastructure and employment.
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
KB4 Land east of Knebworth
Representation ID: 1942
Received: 23/11/2016
Respondent: Mrs Mary Harris
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Objection to KB4:
-infrastructure
-proximity of A1M
-noise
-Green Belt
-prime agricultural land for food
-railway bridges narrow,height,weight restrictions
-Deards End Lane railway bridge is historic monument, Conservation area, listed Lutyens properties.
-gridlock Knebworth High Street if accident on A1M
-pollution
-no local industry or proposed job creation-driving or commuting
-trains:full and proposed reduction of fast services
-building in surrounding villages- traffic
-extending fixed village boundaries -Green Belt corridor between towns and villages
-drains not maintained
-school capacity
-build new town instead
I object to the proposed developments KB1 KB2 KB3 and KB4 at Knebworth for the following reasons:
Knebworth is unsuitable for this large scale expansion because of insufficient infrastructure. The proximity of the A1 M motorway and any expansion on the KB1 and KB2 sites will then exceed the new government air pollution levels. The noise is bad now so sound barriers would be needed making building less viable for builders. Particularly if it is widened as proposed. The proposed dedesignation of Green Belt land for building is unacceptable when prime agricultural land is required to feed our ever growing population. Once built on, the land for agriculture is lost for ever. If more low cost housing is required then why build in one of the most expensive villages. The only people who would be able to afford to buy them would be London commuters as local jobs if any, are not high salaried.
Access to KB1 and KB2 sites will currently have to pass under Gun Lane or Knebworth railway bridges. These bridges are too narrow for vehicles to pass each other as these are dog legged. They are also unsuitable for high vehicles as there is a height restriction .
The Deards End Lane railway bridge has a 7.5 ton weight restriction and is narrow , also it is listed as a historic monument. Deards End lane is narrow and a Conservation area with many listed Lutyens properties . Thus the lane is unsuitable as a cut through to avoid the village.
If there is an accident on the A1M , which is frequent particularly in the winter months, the current knock on effect is a complete blockage through Knebworth high street and all the surrounding roads. This is because Knebworth is on the B197 which is the old great North Road and runs parallel to the A1M. Complete gridlock ensues
which means increased pollution and thousands of wasted man hours.
If we have the proposed 663 dwellings then there will be an extra approx. 1300 cars using the roads and adding to the pollution. Since we have no local industry or proposed job creation all the new residents will be driving or commuting elsewhere to work. The trains are already full when they get to Knebworth and the rail companies are considering reducing the fast rail services from Knebworth
to accommodate other stations.
There is also increased building planned in the surrounding villages so this will also increase traffic. Extending the fixed village boundaries eg Odyssey development and Woolmer Green proposals reduces the traditional Green Belt corridor between towns and villages.
The current drains in Knebworth are no longer maintained, in fact along Park Lane have been tarmacked over, and increased housing will exacerbate the drainage problems. Re KB1 and KB2 the fields adjacent to the motorway are a run off for water from the motorway. Also there are natural springs making it unsuitable for development. The proposals state that wouldn't be a problem. In practice any assurances cannot be relied on as there is flooding in places now and our climate is currently changing to be more extreme.
The current plan to build a single form entry school to accommodate 663 dwellings and possibly about 1300 children is hardly sufficient. What planet do these forecasters live on. The Chas Lowe site should not be developed for housing but for creating a new badly needed surgery and facilities for the village. We have also recently had a small new estate, Oak Tree Gardens, built on the Bulwer Lytton site , the new large retirement home. Also various small developments in the last few years plus infill in every conceivable place. So Knebworth has already played its part in local development. Any more will change the village into a suburb of Stevenage.
If Luton and surrounding need more housing then why build on a more expensive area that few can afford. It is far more sensible to build a purpose built new town with the appropriate infrastructure and employment.