Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

I strongly object to this proposed residential development for the following reasons:
* This proposal would destroy a large amount of North Hertfordshire's Green Belt land, including large swathes of prime countryside which is designated of special significant landscape value. Government policy on Green Belt land is completely ignored in this proposal. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.
* In March and October 2014, the Government updated its online Planning Practice guidance on the policies in the NPPF. This makes it very clear that unmet housing need in a particular area is unlikely to meet the "very special circumstances" test to justify Green Belt development. It also confirms that local authorities have the ability to "safeguard their local area against urban sprawl and protect the green lungs around towns and cities". The government said that it wanted to make planning policy clear that housing need does not justify the harm done to the Green Belt by inappropriate development. This development does not meet the "very special circumstances" test and would seriously harm the Green Belt.
* North Hertfordshire District Council seem intent on allowing their land to be used for building a large number of houses for Luton's alleged unmet housing need, but there is evidence available which clearly indicates that they are not required. .
* If this development went ahead, the ancient villages of Mangrove Green and Cockernhoe would be swamped and lose their individual identity and destruction of local community values
* There will be a devastating impact on wildlife in the area.
Green spaces are essential to the health and well-being of the population but this proposal would mean that access to the countryside for relaxation, recreation and tranquillity will be severely reduced. Many miles of country footpaths enjoyed by many and not least including Luton residents will be concreted over. Plans for green areas within the development will not compensate for this huge loss of green spaces.
* The road infrastructure in the area is already unable to cope with current levels of traffic. Roads into Luton, Luton airport and those which access the M1 are gridlocked at certain times of the day at present. This will be further exacerbated if this development went ahead.
* There are already long tailbacks of vehicles at both the Luton and Hitchin ends of the A505 with frustrated drivers taking to inadequate country lanes to try and avoid the worst bottlenecks. This continues through this part of Luton and towards the motorway. Further development will significantly exaggerate this, increasing danger to pedestrians and the many local school children who walk to school.
* Many local roads in the vicinity of the proposed site are narrow country lanes with single track stretches and they too will be unable to cope with increased traffic, particularly public transport vehicles and large delivery vans and lorries which will be required to serve the development.
* The proposals on transport infrastructure in the application do not do enough to assure us that they will mitigate or improve the problems outlined here. Further independent assessment and research should be undertaken before outline planning permission is granted.
* Local schools at Cockernhoe and Wigmore are already oversubscribed. The application does not indicate where the additional children will be educated.
* Emergency services will struggle to access and serve the community.
* There are no realistic plans for increased provision of essential services such as GP surgeries, hospitals, emergency services, police and adequate public transport. The number of dwellings in this proposal means that all these services will require more resources.
* This proposal is for 660 dwellings. This is an overwhelming number for such a small area. A development of this size in such close proximity to an expanding airport with its associated noise and pollution will not provide a good, healthy lifestyle for the residents.
Ancient bluebell woods will be completely over-run and risk destruction by additional residents new to the development.
I walk and bike in this area with my family, to keep fit and see the wildlife.
Do not let it be destroyed.
I sincerely hopes that these objections will ensure that this application is rejected

I strongly object to this proposed residential development for the following reasons:
* This proposal would destroy a large amount of North Hertfordshire's Green Belt land, including large swathes of prime countryside which is designated of special significant landscape value. Government policy on Green Belt land is completely ignored in this proposal. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.
* In March and October 2014, the Government updated its online Planning Practice guidance on the policies in the NPPF. This makes it very clear that unmet housing need in a particular area is unlikely to meet the "very special circumstances" test to justify Green Belt development. It also confirms that local authorities have the ability to "safeguard their local area against urban sprawl and protect the green lungs around towns and cities". The government said that it wanted to make planning policy clear that housing need does not justify the harm done to the Green Belt by inappropriate development. This development does not meet the "very special circumstances" test and would seriously harm the Green Belt.
* North Hertfordshire District Council seem intent on allowing their land to be used for building a large number of houses for Luton's alleged unmet housing need, but there is evidence available which clearly indicates that they are not required. .
* If this development went ahead, the ancient villages of Mangrove Green and Cockernhoe would be swamped and lose their individual identity and destruction of local community values
* There will be a devastating impact on wildlife in the area.
Green spaces are essential to the health and well-being of the population but this proposal would mean that access to the countryside for relaxation, recreation and tranquillity will be severely reduced. Many miles of country footpaths enjoyed by many and not least including Luton residents will be concreted over. Plans for green areas within the development will not compensate for this huge loss of green spaces.
* The road infrastructure in the area is already unable to cope with current levels of traffic. Roads into Luton, Luton airport and those which access the M1 are gridlocked at certain times of the day at present. This will be further exacerbated if this development went ahead.
* There are already long tailbacks of vehicles at both the Luton and Hitchin ends of the A505 with frustrated drivers taking to inadequate country lanes to try and avoid the worst bottlenecks. This continues through this part of Luton and towards the motorway. Further development will significantly exaggerate this, increasing danger to pedestrians and the many local school children who walk to school.
* Many local roads in the vicinity of the proposed site are narrow country lanes with single track stretches and they too will be unable to cope with increased traffic, particularly public transport vehicles and large delivery vans and lorries which will be required to serve the development.
* The proposals on transport infrastructure in the application do not do enough to assure us that they will mitigate or improve the problems outlined here. Further independent assessment and research should be undertaken before outline planning permission is granted.
* Local schools at Cockernhoe and Wigmore are already oversubscribed. The application does not indicate where the additional children will be educated.
* Emergency services will struggle to access and serve the community.
* There are no realistic plans for increased provision of essential services such as GP surgeries, hospitals, emergency services, police and adequate public transport. The number of dwellings in this proposal means that all these services will require more resources.
* This proposal is for 660 dwellings. This is an overwhelming number for such a small area. A development of this size in such close proximity to an expanding airport with its associated noise and pollution will not provide a good, healthy lifestyle for the residents.
Ancient bluebell woods will be completely over-run and risk destruction by additional residents new to the development.
I walk and bike in this area with my family, to keep fit and see the wildlife.
Do not let it be destroyed.
I sincerely hopes that these objections will ensure that this application is rejected