Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

I strongly object to the outline North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011- 2031 especially the sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 which affect the areas of Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green, Tea Green, Copthorne, Rochford Drive, Putteridgebury, Wandon End, Wigmore and Brick kiln Lane, for the following reasons: Please tick all of the issues that concern you (all if necessary!) .The 'New Neighbourhood Planning Infrastructure Bill 2016' states that it supports the Government's ambition to deliver one million new homes, whilst protecting those areas that are valued most, including the Green Belt. This area is Green Belt and the application does not meet the 'Very Special Circumstances' required to build on it as stated in paragraph 80 and 83 of the National Planning Framework and also the House of Commons briefing note on Green Belt. The Green Belt boundaries should not be amended in response to individual planning applications (The National Planning Policy Framework, Paragraph 83).

There are 205 dwellings in Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green and Tea Green currently. An additional 2100 dwellings will be an increase of 1124%. This development is completely out of proportion to all other developments in the district - these villages and communities will cease to exist.

1.Of these additional dwellings 150 are for North Herts, the remaining 1950 are to meet Luton's supposed unmet needs, a number which hasn't been qualified when challenged.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: Crawley Green Road and Eaton Green Road are backing up over 750 metres at their junctions with Airport Way during the rush hour, without the addition of a further 5000+ vehicles. The roads through the airport are often gridlocked and with the growth of passengers at Luton Airport, currently 12.75 million (2015) with a projected increase year on year to 22 million by 2030 this is set to worsen. Stockingstone and A505 suffer equally.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The traffic Survey carried in 2015 was not done to industry standards i.e. for a month and also the results of this survey showed a negligible or nil effect on local congestion when the results, and thus the underpinning of the proposal, were based on a road that doesn't exist, hasn't been proposed and has been stated by the council that there is no money to develop.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: In the shorter term, the projected airport development/business park/light industry, will attract a further 7,000 employees (ref. LBC). The roads cannot cope with this increase in vehicles.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The two country lanes with insufficient passing places which lead out of the site into North Herts are already being used as dangerous rat-runs. This will increase as residents seek to access the M1 via Lilley Bottom and Lilley, and seek to access Hitchin/Stevenage through Offley.

2.The paths and woodlands are used by villagers and people from neighbouring Luton as a leisure area for walking/running/cycling. These will be destroyed despite the national push to encourage people to keep fit.

3.In the presentation of the local plan Councillor Levitt stated that "the development plays a key role in supporting the growth of our economy planning for the right type and number of homes, in the right place to create sustainable communities" How can a development only linking north Herts by two single track lanes be considered as a sustainable community?

4.There is sufficient brown field land in Luton to accommodate 'Luton's Unmet Need' at the same housing density as this proposed development.

5.Teeming wildlife, owl, bats, deer, etc., will be displaced. Wildlife corridors are no substitute

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -

I absolutely object to the proposed building of an additional 2100 homes on the land west of Cockernhoe.

Quite simply this plan is without regard to the already stressed infrastructure, preservation of green belt land, wildlife and village identity. Why do we have to foot Luton's unmet need? How has that actually been quantified?

Rush hour traffic is horrific whichever route I use to exit the village either in the lanes which cannot accommodate traffic travelling in both directions safely and also via the roads towards the airport. With this plan this will only get significantly worse - this is not acceptable for current or future residents. Unless of course there is a future plan for a large access road between Hitchin and Luton closer to the airport which we have been promised there is not....

There has been no clarity on commissioning factors for our already overstretched local public services, where will the proposed additional thousand plus go for schooling, medical care and emergency services? Ultimately it creates a vastly diluted service for existing residents which again is unacceptable and dangerous - what about our human right to accessible health care provision, social care and education?

There are numerous, better suited sites available for development which are not being considered as you are trying to cram the unmet need in here to utilise our resources, saving time and money. This is a short term outlook which will create long term chaos. Additionally it is illegal to build on green belt land. This is attractive, utilised green belt land used not only by the farmers but by the public in their free leisure time. Buffer spaces are simply not comparable.

This is not a solution for the unmet housing need, nor do any of the local population welcome this. The village identity which has been preserved for decades will be lost - is this really necessary?

We as local residents are not being kept well informed or feel that our concerns and objections are being listened to. Surely this has to be the basis of a fair considered consultation. Putting the proposals in a newspaper that is not delivered to any of the residents is preposterous. Additionally we are not fairly represented by our local councillor as he supports this local plan which is not the view of our community. He supports this to remove the Wolf from his door, in doing so puts it firmly on ours. We should be entitled to have our views represented by someone who actually feels the same way.

I strongly oppose these and any other plans to build on the green belt land surrounding Cockernhoe.

I strongly object to the outline North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011- 2031 especially the sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 which affect the areas of Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green, Tea Green, Copthorne, Rochford Drive, Putteridgebury, Wandon End, Wigmore and Brick kiln Lane, for the following reasons: Please tick all of the issues that concern you (all if necessary!) .The 'New Neighbourhood Planning Infrastructure Bill 2016' states that it supports the Government's ambition to deliver one million new homes, whilst protecting those areas that are valued most, including the Green Belt. This area is Green Belt and the application does not meet the 'Very Special Circumstances' required to build on it as stated in paragraph 80 and 83 of the National Planning Framework and also the House of Commons briefing note on Green Belt. The Green Belt boundaries should not be amended in response to individual planning applications (The National Planning Policy Framework, Paragraph 83).

There are 205 dwellings in Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green and Tea Green currently. An additional 2100 dwellings will be an increase of 1124%. This development is completely out of proportion to all other developments in the district - these villages and communities will cease to exist.

1.Of these additional dwellings 150 are for North Herts, the remaining 1950 are to meet Luton's supposed unmet needs, a number which hasn't been qualified when challenged.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: Crawley Green Road and Eaton Green Road are backing up over 750 metres at their junctions with Airport Way during the rush hour, without the addition of a further 5000+ vehicles. The roads through the airport are often gridlocked and with the growth of passengers at Luton Airport, currently 12.75 million (2015) with a projected increase year on year to 22 million by 2030 this is set to worsen. Stockingstone and A505 suffer equally.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The traffic Survey carried in 2015 was not done to industry standards i.e. for a month and also the results of this survey showed a negligible or nil effect on local congestion when the results, and thus the underpinning of the proposal, were based on a road that doesn't exist, hasn't been proposed and has been stated by the council that there is no money to develop.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: In the shorter term, the projected airport development/business park/light industry, will attract a further 7,000 employees (ref. LBC). The roads cannot cope with this increase in vehicles.

There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: The two country lanes with insufficient passing places which lead out of the site into North Herts are already being used as dangerous rat-runs. This will increase as residents seek to access the M1 via Lilley Bottom and Lilley, and seek to access Hitchin/Stevenage through Offley.

2.The paths and woodlands are used by villagers and people from neighbouring Luton as a leisure area for walking/running/cycling. These will be destroyed despite the national push to encourage people to keep fit.

3.In the presentation of the local plan Councillor Levitt stated that "the development plays a key role in supporting the growth of our economy planning for the right type and number of homes, in the right place to create sustainable communities" How can a development only linking north Herts by two single track lanes be considered as a sustainable community?

4.There is sufficient brown field land in Luton to accommodate 'Luton's Unmet Need' at the same housing density as this proposed development.

5.Teeming wildlife, owl, bats, deer, etc., will be displaced. Wildlife corridors are no substitute

In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -

I absolutely object to the proposed building of an additional 2100 homes on the land west of Cockernhoe.

Quite simply this plan is without regard to the already stressed infrastructure, preservation of green belt land, wildlife and village identity. Why do we have to foot Luton's unmet need? How has that actually been quantified?

Rush hour traffic is horrific whichever route I use to exit the village either in the lanes which cannot accommodate traffic travelling in both directions safely and also via the roads towards the airport. With this plan this will only get significantly worse - this is not acceptable for current or future residents. Unless of course there is a future plan for a large access road between Hitchin and Luton closer to the airport which we have been promised there is not....

There has been no clarity on commissioning factors for our already overstretched local public services, where will the proposed additional thousand plus go for schooling, medical care and emergency services? Ultimately it creates a vastly diluted service for existing residents which again is unacceptable and dangerous - what about our human right to accessible health care provision, social care and education?

There are numerous, better suited sites available for development which are not being considered as you are trying to cram the unmet need in here to utilise our resources, saving time and money. This is a short term outlook which will create long term chaos. Additionally it is illegal to build on green belt land. This is attractive, utilised green belt land used not only by the farmers but by the public in their free leisure time. Buffer spaces are simply not comparable.

This is not a solution for the unmet housing need, nor do any of the local population welcome this. The village identity which has been preserved for decades will be lost - is this really necessary?

We as local residents are not being kept well informed or feel that our concerns and objections are being listened to. Surely this has to be the basis of a fair considered consultation. Putting the proposals in a newspaper that is not delivered to any of the residents is preposterous. Additionally we are not fairly represented by our local councillor as he supports this local plan which is not the view of our community. He supports this to remove the Wolf from his door, in doing so puts it firmly on ours. We should be entitled to have our views represented by someone who actually feels the same way.

I strongly oppose these and any other plans to build on the green belt land surrounding Cockernhoe.