Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

We fully support the need for more housing in Britain and for every community to contribute to this. Unfortunately you can't shift demand away from the South East in spite of the distortions in land and house prices in the region, so we have to shoulder more of the burden.

However, rather than the piecemeal expansion of existing communities, it would be far preferable to build a new town complete with appropriate infrastructure and with enormous economies of scale in cost terms. Such a new town would have to have a railway station and good (i.e. dual carriageway) access to the road network. It is a surprise that no mention is made of this in the full document.

It's a shame that Arseley isn't all in North Herts but a joint deal with Beds to create a new town there would be a good idea. Failing this a new town south of Ashwell Station would also be an excellent choice. The village is well away from this area which would reduce protests. A road tunnel (with pavements) under the A505 would be necessary and is in any case way overdue.

A new town would also give scope for a large proportion of social as opposed to 'affordable' housing. If built in Knebworth, the latter would rapidly be subject to market forces and become unaffordable. Furthermore the scope for local job creation would be much greater if larger employers were to attracted - something that can't happen in Knebworth

We appreciate why above the above average expansion of Knebworth within North Herts is, on paper, attractive given its railway station and excellent shops and other facilities. However we doubt the ability of planners or anyone else to come up with solutions to the dramatic impact it will have on existing road traffic pinch points. We presume that the rail bridges can be widened and straightened out, but the B 197, High Street, Watton Road, Gipsy Lane, Deards End Lane, Stockens Green etc. would not be able to cope with the extra traffic without very extensive road widening and straightening. A ring road might help. And parking in the High Street would have to be restricted - something that has thwarted political intervention for centuries.

Other infrastructure demands (schooling, sewage, drainage, road and pavement upkeep, parking etc) are just as important as plonking down 663 dwellings. Far from being overly suspicious, we don't think anyone round here trusts the relevant authorities to tackle such issues in a cohesive manner. And yet these will have a major bearing on the everyday life of current and future residents. More so than the plonking down in fact.

We don't buy the Green Belt argument about development. When we fly into Luton we are always amazed at the amount of greenery there is around the Stevenage and N Herts communities. If each of these was expanded for housing by 5% in area it would have no discernable impact on the greenery. People (other than those on the immediate boundary) would not notice - mainly because hardly any of them access the countryside in question in the first place. Sneaking a bit of land from the green belt will not lead to the total industrialisation of the countryside as suggested by the preposterous Sandridge commercial being shown in St.Albans cinema.