Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Search representations

Results for Mr Dirk Blyth search

New search New search

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Policy SP19: Sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 - East of Luton

Representation ID: 3298

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Dirk Blyth

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity

Full text:

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 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 -
All of the benefits of this development will go to North Hertfordshire Council the land owners and developers. There are no advantages for the Borough of Luton and residents, who will have their facilities and infrastructure overwhelmed; and not a penny in council tax revenue. If this land were ever to be developed, it would be fairer to allow Luton Borough Council to purchase the land and make the appropriate development, within its own boundaries.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Policy SP8: Housing

Representation ID: 3299

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Dirk Blyth

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Luton's unmet needs not qualified, sufficient brownfield land in Luton

Full text:

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 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 -
All of the benefits of this development will go to North Hertfordshire Council the land owners and developers. There are no advantages for the Borough of Luton and residents, who will have their facilities and infrastructure overwhelmed; and not a penny in council tax revenue. If this land were ever to be developed, it would be fairer to allow Luton Borough Council to purchase the land and make the appropriate development, within its own boundaries.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Policy SP19: Sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 - East of Luton

Representation ID: 3304

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Dirk Blyth

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 - EL1, EL2 and EL3
- Building on the Green Belt
- Noise and Air Pollution
- Luton Airport expansion
- Scale of development
- Infrastructure requirement (schools, doctors, shops, roads and parking)

Full text:

Personally, I believe in green belt. It should be cherished and preserved for the future of our children. I therefore make the following points against the proposed development at Cockenhoe.
* Why are the council considering this huge development at Cockernhoe, in an area already blighted by noise and air pollution, which is only going to get worse, as Luton Airport expands?
* Why has the council chosen to expand a village of 200 houses, by building more than 2,000 houses? Similar plans for Codicote (a nearby village) of 1,500 homes, are to get just 73 new homes. Cockernhoe has only recently been expanded by some 20 homes which is in keeping for such a small country hamlet.
* A development of these proportions require more infrastructure than is being proposed. Hertfordshire County Council and the Developer should be encouraged to improve the access to Cockernhoe village, to and from the north, via Chalk Hill and the Lilly Bottom road, to the A505 prior to any development.
* All of the benefits of this development will go to North Hertfordshire Council the land owners and developers. There are no advantages for the Borough of Luton and residents, who will have their facilities and infrastructure overwhelmed; and not a penny in council tax revenue. If this land were ever to be developed, it would be fairer to allow Luton Borough Council to purchase the land and make the appropriate development, within its own boundaries.
* Where are the schools, doctors, shops, roads and parking for all the cars; not to mention the 4,000 to 6,000 people, who my live in these new homes?

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.