Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Overall strategy:
The overall strategy is not clear. In fact, there is not an overall strategy and as such means that the plan is not effective. The fact that there is no strategy is apparent in the lack of connections between housing, cumulative development and infrastructure needed to support growth sustainably. Therefore, the plan is not sound.
Amount of housing:
The amount of new housing (663 dwellings) would increase the village size by 31%. This is an increase of approximately 200 homes in this Plan to 2 years ago. None of the issues highlighted then have been addressed, so how can the village now support and additional 200 homes to 2 years ago? Please note Knebworth is a village, even though it is referred to as a town in the Plan.
Plan for over 500 homes should have a specific plan with developer obligations. Because of the separate sites, this obligation has been overlooked at bets, or deliberately manipulated at worse (by calling each site separate in its own right, rather than all part of the Knebworth site). There is no provision for jobs creation in the Plan as a whole and therefore no consideration for the local economy.
Planning has been granted for the Odyssey site to the north of Knebworth for approx. 70-100 homes. This hasn't been taken into account when determining amount of housing for Knebworth. These houses are being termed 'windfall gains'. A clear strategy should take these into account.
Furthermore, Stevenage West land has already been reserved for 3,100 homes. This would be better able to provide facilities and services.
There is no joined up thinking with adjacent parishes. Plans for Woolmer Green of 150 homes (to the north of Woolmer Green) have not been taken into account. If all the proposals go ahead then Knebworth and Woolmer Green will merge and Stevenage and Knebworth would be practically joined up. The town and villages will all merge into one.
The site KB4 has not previously undergone any consultation. This is against policy and verging on illegal.
Chas Lowe site: Again, as there is no proposal for any commercial use it is evidence of a lack of strategy for Knebworth. The village centre will be changed and this will have an impact. The facilities of Knebworth are designated as a village centre in the retail hierarchy under policy SP4. Therefore, any development of the village centre needs to take this into account. At a bare minimum, some mixed use should be proposed.
Transport:
It was raised in the previous consultation in 2014 that the existence of the railway line poses huge challenges regarding transport/traffic through the village. These challenges have not been addressed in this plan; in fact, the Plan says (13.195) that there are no mitigation requirements regarding transport. In fact, the Highways Agency has raised this issue previously. The problem with the bridges has been ignored. The two railway bridges at either end of the village are already dangerous due to the current volume of traffic, narrow roads, corners, and narrow pavements. An increase in volume of traffic and pedestrians will make this increasingly dangerous. There have already been many near misses. These two routes are used extensively by small children going to and from school, in the morning rush hour. An increase of 31% of this scale can only add to the problems.
The high street is also a known pinch point; it current takes over 35 minutes to reach junction 6 of the A1 in rush hour, which is only 2 miles away. Increased traffic will only exacerbate this).
Deards End Lane is already dangerous, and it can't be widened. It is unsuitable for heavy traffic and increased traffic will make it more dangerous and over-crowded.
In the Plan (13.192) it states that much of the traffic in the mornings is caused by secondary school pupils going to school in the car. This is simply not true. Virtually ALL secondary school pupils use the trains (to Hitchin and Hatfield) and the school provided buses (to Stevenage, Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield, Hertford, Ware), and public buses. Therefore, the idea that possible secondary school provision could ease the traffic volume is simply inaccurate.
Regarding site KB4, there is an obvious lack of capacity on Watton Road and Swangley's Lane.

Schools:
Primary:
* A second primary school on site KB2 is not well considered. This would be adjacent to the A1 and as such noise and air pollution will be significant. Children and teachers cannot learn and teach in this environment. In December 2014 the Environmental Audit Committee issued a report stating that: 'A ban on building schools, hospitals, and care homes near air pollution hotspots must be introduced to help cut thousands of deaths connected to the 'invisible killer' of traffic fumes.'
* A second primary school will change the village feel of Knebworth to more of a town, or urban sprawl. It will increase pressure on the roads under on the railway bridges because more people would be crossing the village each morning, in both directions, with young children. I would be naïve to assume that parents would automatically chose the primary school nearest to them, or on their side of the village
* Finally, regarding a new primary school, it will create a 'divide' in the village. One school will be 'better' than the other, and therefore a social dividend will emerge. This would not be healthy for the community feel of Knebworth.
Secondary:
In the Plan (13.192) it states that much of the traffic in the mornings is caused by secondary school pupils going to school in the car. This is simply not true. Virtually ALL secondary school pupils use the trains (to Hitchin and Hatfield) and the school provided buses (to Stevenage, Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield, Hertford, Ware), and public buses. Therefore, the idea that possible secondary school provision could ease the traffic volume is simply inaccurate.
13.193 mentions an 'all-through' school. It uses the term 'possibly' and 'provides the opportunity to look at alternative approaches' .This is certainly nothing definitive. It does not seem likely that a secondary school would be built; in fact, there is not actually a shortage of secondary school places in Stevenage and so there would be no reason to provide a secondary school.

Overall strategy:
The overall strategy is not clear. In fact, there is not an overall strategy and as such means that the plan is not effective. The fact that there is no strategy is apparent in the lack of connections between housing, cumulative development and infrastructure needed to support growth sustainably. Therefore, the plan is not sound.
Amount of housing:
The amount of new housing (663 dwellings) would increase the village size by 31%. This is an increase of approximately 200 homes in this Plan to 2 years ago. None of the issues highlighted then have been addressed, so how can the village now support and additional 200 homes to 2 years ago? Please note Knebworth is a village, even though it is referred to as a town in the Plan.
Plan for over 500 homes should have a specific plan with developer obligations. Because of the separate sites, this obligation has been overlooked at bets, or deliberately manipulated at worse (by calling each site separate in its own right, rather than all part of the Knebworth site). There is no provision for jobs creation in the Plan as a whole and therefore no consideration for the local economy.
Planning has been granted for the Odyssey site to the north of Knebworth for approx. 70-100 homes. This hasn't been taken into account when determining amount of housing for Knebworth. These houses are being termed 'windfall gains'. A clear strategy should take these into account.
Furthermore, Stevenage West land has already been reserved for 3,100 homes. This would be better able to provide facilities and services.
There is no joined up thinking with adjacent parishes. Plans for Woolmer Green of 150 homes (to the north of Woolmer Green) have not been taken into account. If all the proposals go ahead then Knebworth and Woolmer Green will merge and Stevenage and Knebworth would be practically joined up. The town and villages will all merge into one.
The site KB4 has not previously undergone any consultation. This is against policy and verging on illegal.
Chas Lowe site: Again, as there is no proposal for any commercial use it is evidence of a lack of strategy for Knebworth. The village centre will be changed and this will have an impact. The facilities of Knebworth are designated as a village centre in the retail hierarchy under policy SP4. Therefore, any development of the village centre needs to take this into account. At a bare minimum, some mixed use should be proposed.
Transport:
It was raised in the previous consultation in 2014 that the existence of the railway line poses huge challenges regarding transport/traffic through the village. These challenges have not been addressed in this plan; in fact, the Plan says (13.195) that there are no mitigation requirements regarding transport. In fact, the Highways Agency has raised this issue previously. The problem with the bridges has been ignored. The two railway bridges at either end of the village are already dangerous due to the current volume of traffic, narrow roads, corners, and narrow pavements. An increase in volume of traffic and pedestrians will make this increasingly dangerous. There have already been many near misses. These two routes are used extensively by small children going to and from school, in the morning rush hour. An increase of 31% of this scale can only add to the problems.
The high street is also a known pinch point; it current takes over 35 minutes to reach junction 6 of the A1 in rush hour, which is only 2 miles away. Increased traffic will only exacerbate this).
Deards End Lane is already dangerous, and it can't be widened. It is unsuitable for heavy traffic and increased traffic will make it more dangerous and over-crowded.
In the Plan (13.192) it states that much of the traffic in the mornings is caused by secondary school pupils going to school in the car. This is simply not true. Virtually ALL secondary school pupils use the trains (to Hitchin and Hatfield) and the school provided buses (to Stevenage, Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield, Hertford, Ware), and public buses. Therefore, the idea that possible secondary school provision could ease the traffic volume is simply inaccurate.
Regarding site KB4, there is an obvious lack of capacity on Watton Road and Swangley's Lane.

Schools:
Primary:
* A second primary school on site KB2 is not well considered. This would be adjacent to the A1 and as such noise and air pollution will be significant. Children and teachers cannot learn and teach in this environment. In December 2014 the Environmental Audit Committee issued a report stating that: 'A ban on building schools, hospitals, and care homes near air pollution hotspots must be introduced to help cut thousands of deaths connected to the 'invisible killer' of traffic fumes.'
* A second primary school will change the village feel of Knebworth to more of a town, or urban sprawl. It will increase pressure on the roads under on the railway bridges because more people would be crossing the village each morning, in both directions, with young children. I would be naïve to assume that parents would automatically chose the primary school nearest to them, or on their side of the village
* Finally, regarding a new primary school, it will create a 'divide' in the village. One school will be 'better' than the other, and therefore a social dividend will emerge. This would not be healthy for the community feel of Knebworth.
Secondary:
In the Plan (13.192) it states that much of the traffic in the mornings is caused by secondary school pupils going to school in the car. This is simply not true. Virtually ALL secondary school pupils use the trains (to Hitchin and Hatfield) and the school provided buses (to Stevenage, Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield, Hertford, Ware), and public buses. Therefore, the idea that possible secondary school provision could ease the traffic volume is simply inaccurate.
13.193 mentions an 'all-through' school. It uses the term 'possibly' and 'provides the opportunity to look at alternative approaches' .This is certainly nothing definitive. It does not seem likely that a secondary school would be built; in fact, there is not actually a shortage of secondary school places in Stevenage and so there would be no reason to provide a secondary school.

Overall strategy:
The overall strategy is not clear. In fact, there is not an overall strategy and as such means that the plan is not effective. The fact that there is no strategy is apparent in the lack of connections between housing, cumulative development and infrastructure needed to support growth sustainably. Therefore, the plan is not sound.
Amount of housing:
The amount of new housing (663 dwellings) would increase the village size by 31%. This is an increase of approximately 200 homes in this Plan to 2 years ago. None of the issues highlighted then have been addressed, so how can the village now support and additional 200 homes to 2 years ago? Please note Knebworth is a village, even though it is referred to as a town in the Plan.
Plan for over 500 homes should have a specific plan with developer obligations. Because of the separate sites, this obligation has been overlooked at bets, or deliberately manipulated at worse (by calling each site separate in its own right, rather than all part of the Knebworth site). There is no provision for jobs creation in the Plan as a whole and therefore no consideration for the local economy.
Planning has been granted for the Odyssey site to the north of Knebworth for approx. 70-100 homes. This hasn't been taken into account when determining amount of housing for Knebworth. These houses are being termed 'windfall gains'. A clear strategy should take these into account.
Furthermore, Stevenage West land has already been reserved for 3,100 homes. This would be better able to provide facilities and services.
There is no joined up thinking with adjacent parishes. Plans for Woolmer Green of 150 homes (to the north of Woolmer Green) have not been taken into account. If all the proposals go ahead then Knebworth and Woolmer Green will merge and Stevenage and Knebworth would be practically joined up. The town and villages will all merge into one.
The site KB4 has not previously undergone any consultation. This is against policy and verging on illegal.
Chas Lowe site: Again, as there is no proposal for any commercial use it is evidence of a lack of strategy for Knebworth. The village centre will be changed and this will have an impact. The facilities of Knebworth are designated as a village centre in the retail hierarchy under policy SP4. Therefore, any development of the village centre needs to take this into account. At a bare minimum, some mixed use should be proposed.
Transport:
It was raised in the previous consultation in 2014 that the existence of the railway line poses huge challenges regarding transport/traffic through the village. These challenges have not been addressed in this plan; in fact, the Plan says (13.195) that there are no mitigation requirements regarding transport. In fact, the Highways Agency has raised this issue previously. The problem with the bridges has been ignored. The two railway bridges at either end of the village are already dangerous due to the current volume of traffic, narrow roads, corners, and narrow pavements. An increase in volume of traffic and pedestrians will make this increasingly dangerous. There have already been many near misses. These two routes are used extensively by small children going to and from school, in the morning rush hour. An increase of 31% of this scale can only add to the problems.
The high street is also a known pinch point; it current takes over 35 minutes to reach junction 6 of the A1 in rush hour, which is only 2 miles away. Increased traffic will only exacerbate this).
Deards End Lane is already dangerous, and it can't be widened. It is unsuitable for heavy traffic and increased traffic will make it more dangerous and over-crowded.
In the Plan (13.192) it states that much of the traffic in the mornings is caused by secondary school pupils going to school in the car. This is simply not true. Virtually ALL secondary school pupils use the trains (to Hitchin and Hatfield) and the school provided buses (to Stevenage, Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield, Hertford, Ware), and public buses. Therefore, the idea that possible secondary school provision could ease the traffic volume is simply inaccurate.
Regarding site KB4, there is an obvious lack of capacity on Watton Road and Swangley's Lane.

Schools:
Primary:
* A second primary school on site KB2 is not well considered. This would be adjacent to the A1 and as such noise and air pollution will be significant. Children and teachers cannot learn and teach in this environment. In December 2014 the Environmental Audit Committee issued a report stating that: 'A ban on building schools, hospitals, and care homes near air pollution hotspots must be introduced to help cut thousands of deaths connected to the 'invisible killer' of traffic fumes.'
* A second primary school will change the village feel of Knebworth to more of a town, or urban sprawl. It will increase pressure on the roads under on the railway bridges because more people would be crossing the village each morning, in both directions, with young children. I would be naïve to assume that parents would automatically chose the primary school nearest to them, or on their side of the village
* Finally, regarding a new primary school, it will create a 'divide' in the village. One school will be 'better' than the other, and therefore a social dividend will emerge. This would not be healthy for the community feel of Knebworth.
Secondary:
In the Plan (13.192) it states that much of the traffic in the mornings is caused by secondary school pupils going to school in the car. This is simply not true. Virtually ALL secondary school pupils use the trains (to Hitchin and Hatfield) and the school provided buses (to Stevenage, Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield, Hertford, Ware), and public buses. Therefore, the idea that possible secondary school provision could ease the traffic volume is simply inaccurate.
13.193 mentions an 'all-through' school. It uses the term 'possibly' and 'provides the opportunity to look at alternative approaches' .This is certainly nothing definitive. It does not seem likely that a secondary school would be built; in fact, there is not actually a shortage of secondary school places in Stevenage and so there would be no reason to provide a secondary school.