Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

As a resident of Knebworth who commutes daily to Stevenage I would like to comment on the local plan currently out for consultation. Overall there are many good goals recommended but these appear to have been largely ignored and development positioned haphazardly around and arguments for the developments then dreamt up.
The plan mentions high recent migration (2.70), whilst this has historically been true and may well continue in the short term the plan is already out of date by not accounting for BREXIT. BREXIT will, inevitably decrease the numbers of households that should be considered as needed POST BREXIT. Whatever the outcome of BREXIT negotiations the influence migration had on the vote will focus the government of whatever colour it may be into restricting this flow. It is not clear how the numbers should be adjusted to account for this or whether this is allowed until directive from central government is received, however, this is a material change in National policy and should now be accounted for.
The plan is considering an increase of approximately 24000*100/131696 % or 18% ish in housing. For Knebworth the plan is considering an increase of 31%. This is not fair nor is it justified anywhere in the plan. In addition the development in Knebworth contravenes para 1.7 (that green belt utilisation should be avoided except in exceptional circumstances.)
The plan positively points out a desire to restrict commuting (paras 4.22 & 4.26). This would if implemented reduce the overall increase in greenhouse gas emissions (para 2.81 states the plan fails to reduce greenhouse emissions and a recent court case has shown this is not acceptable at national level so is unlikely to be acceptable at local level either.) The plan claims to positively bias housing development to the areas earmarked for increased employment to reduce travel (4.22), but in practice has ignored this policy for Knebworth which been earmarked for a reduction in employment (KB3) and so should by this measure expect to attract less than the average housing increase.
The rail services to Knebworth station are continually threatened (and frequently have no space for Knebworth station users at peak times) with changes proposed so as to improve services to larger stations such as Stevenage and Hitchin/Letchworth. If the policy is to promote rail commuting (the plan is not clear on this) then extra housing for rail commuters should thus be in Steveange/Letchworth and Hitchin but not Knebworth or Woolmer Green to avoid road commuting between settlements. As a worker in Gunnels wood road in Stevenage I am aware that a development to the West of Stevenage would be partially within walking distance of that station and if built with cycle facilities to merge with the existing facilities in Stevenage could provide a 100% safe off road cycling route and so for rail or work commuting could be a very Green development. This is ignored in the plan despite sustainable transport being one of its goals. Also as regards Knebworth the access bridge to Knebworth station is dangerously narrow for both road and pedestrian use so developments to the East of the station (KB3 & KB4) cannot be considered suitable for rail commuting.
It is noted that the A1M provides strong North/South links but that other roads also suffer as use as cut throughs (para 2.75). As I commute daily by car from Knebworth to Stevenage I notice that the predominant traffic flow is South in the morning and North in the evening whereas if the road were simply used by local residents and people working along the B197 corridor the traffic flow would be the other way around at this northern end of the road. Hence this road suffers from being used by significant traffic in preference to the purpose built North/south flow A1M. The plan does not address this issue, although if traffic were slowed it would discourage commuting and make it safer for the existing local traffic load and less noisy to local residents so improving their environment (para 2.66 bullet 4).
Referring to para 2.83 much travel between Knebworth and Stevenage (required for jobs & shops to even greater extent if plan implemented) could be undertaken by bicycle but currently the B197 hill down from Knebworth to Stevenage is a no go zone for all but the most confident cyclist as the road markings force motorists to the edge of the road where the cyclist would be, and for going down the hill a second up lane prevents motorist from having room to pass cyclists. To remove cyclists from the motorists' path cyclists are permitted to take the slower and less safe footpath which is strewn with debris, overgrown and insufficiently wide to safely pass a pedestrian. I have noted over the past month that on nine out of ten mornings as I commuted into Stevenage if I had cycled I would have been in conflict with pedestrians if I had used the footpaths. Commuters (whether motorist or cyclist, all are human) want to take the fastest route to where they are going and to be offered an alternative that takes you out of the way and/or delays you is not an alternative but a means of removing the inconvenient few cyclists that persist and promoting the remaining mode of transport (in this case the motorist). This road is adequately wide to have a proper cycle path installed all the way from the centre of Knebworth to the Stevenage Cycle path network. All that has to be done is remove the "up" overtaking lane and central reservations and replace with a speed limit and mini roundabouts to facilitate effective safe access to the roads currently served by chicken zones in the central area of the road. These roundabouts would also permit access to the cycle path and help the motorist comply with existing speed limits. Whilst this would slow the traffic the main pinch point is the Tesco traffic lights and Roebuck junction in Stevenage so it will not in fact reduce the road capacity if the A1M had to be closed, the traffic would merely flow at a more uniform rate, rather like the speed restrictions imposed on motorways when they are busy. The existing traffic causes daily problems, rather than increase these problems with further developments the plan could help address these issues with this example of green infrastructure (para 2.51) to help the plans carbon footprint and reduce future road maintenance bills. Such schemes do not require extra development to make them worthwhile and could also be implemented elsewhere, I am sure, but do not appear to have been considered.
Other laudable goals are to protect open spaces (ENV3), support rural diversification (Econ 6), minimise need to travel (ECON 7) and re-use previously developed land whilst offering opportunities for new infrastructure (3.3). The development planned in Knebworth contradicts all these goals, the quantity of extra homes in Knebworth is so high that the nature of the entire village would be changed to a commuting monoculture, more travel would be enforced on all residents by removal of retail facilities (kb3, also contradicts 2.74), open spaces removed and partial merging with Stevenage (kb4, also ignores 4.55) and on entirely green belt or existing currently used land. On top of that no infrastructure developments are planned other than rebuilding existing facilities (13.200) that already cannot cope with existing demand. The suggestion that a new secondary school may be built here implies the planners have realised the extent to which they have adversely altered the environment but given that such a small school would be able to offer very little choice the viability from an educational view point is very dubious and restraints on budgets would almost certainly prevent any such development in the long term.
The plan totally fails as regards Knebworth by making it less self-sustaining, less green( 2.81), less diverse (econ 6), with less facilities(Kb3 and 2.74), more travelling and more polluting (Econ 7) less healthy (2.77), less open spaces (2.80) .
Development in Knebworth was expected to contribute to the goals of a strategic plan for the district as a whole but what is proposed does not fit in with the goals. Moreover it has missed the opportunity to provide housing to match the employment opportunities locally expected in Hitchin, Letchworth, Stevenage and especially in the North of the district where average only increases are planned for the huge employment prospects envisaged coming from Cambridge and Peterborough. As for the environmental effect of the overall plan, the Knebworth developments are entirely negative to the plan and actually promote travel, one of the key items required to be reduced to address climate change, one of the goals of the plan (1.7). The plan actually largely ignores such issues which may be better addressed by a new town where a complete Green infrastructure could be implemented. An alternative would be to ensure that new housing developments are linked to their intended social and employment target zones by pedestrian, cycle, and public transport means to the detriment of the more environmentally damaging forms of transport, not merely fitted in alongside if space is available. This plan is basically still promoting increased traffic flow and relegating "greener" transportation to leisure activities, which may go a small way to addressing health issues but actually also generates more motorised traffic as the users of such facilities try to get to the restricted areas where such facilities exist but are unable to use them for daily social or work activities.