Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

I object to the planning of housing on the Green Belt Land, Application Local Plan 2011-2031.

Due to the increase in Road Traffic on Crawley Green Road, and surrounding areas - the infrastructure is not in place - a problem on the M1 affects all of Luton, and also Harpenden and St. Albans

Plus:

Since January 5 2015, all GP practices in England have been free to register new patients who live outside their practice boundary area - this could affect the local surgery in Wigmore and surrounding practices.

Also, Asda, the nearest supermarket does not have enough car parking space to accommodate these extra household customers.

Also, traffic surveys were carried out during School holidays.

Also, at the presentation in Wigmore Church earlier this year, it was suggested that cycling would be encouraged instead of cars (???) and to aid this the pavements would be widened- Oxford Dictionary definition of pavement: "A raised paved or asphalted path for pedestrians at the side of a road".

Also, the local Red Kite re-introduction program could be compromised.

Also, there are empty properties in Luton - the flats at the bottom of Eaton Green Road have been empty since 2001 at least.
Flats have been built in Luton town centre for Luxury Student Accommodation - the University has no requirements for all these buildings and accommodations.

AND - THIS IS GREEN BELT LAND - HOW CAN PLANNING FOR HOUSING BE GRANTED????????

Also I agree with the concerns as listed on the KEOLG Website:

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.

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. ->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. 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. 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.

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.

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?

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

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

And to reiterate: THIS IS GREEN BELT LAND - HOW CAN PLANNING FOR HOUSING BE GRANTED????????

See attached

See attached

I object to the planning of housing on the Green Belt Land, Application Local Plan 2011-2031.

Due to the increase in Road Traffic on Crawley Green Road, and surrounding areas - the infrastructure is not in place - a problem on the M1 affects all of Luton, and also Harpenden and St. Albans

Plus:

Since January 5 2015, all GP practices in England have been free to register new patients who live outside their practice boundary area - this could affect the local surgery in Wigmore and surrounding practices.

Also, Asda, the nearest supermarket does not have enough car parking space to accommodate these extra household customers.

Also, traffic surveys were carried out during School holidays.

Also, at the presentation in Wigmore Church earlier this year, it was suggested that cycling would be encouraged instead of cars (???) and to aid this the pavements would be widened- Oxford Dictionary definition of pavement: "A raised paved or asphalted path for pedestrians at the side of a road".

Also, the local Red Kite re-introduction program could be compromised.

Also, there are empty properties in Luton - the flats at the bottom of Eaton Green Road have been empty since 2001 at least.
Flats have been built in Luton town centre for Luxury Student Accommodation - the University has no requirements for all these buildings and accommodations.

AND - THIS IS GREEN BELT LAND - HOW CAN PLANNING FOR HOUSING BE GRANTED????????

Also I agree with the concerns as listed on the KEOLG Website:

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.

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. ->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. 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. 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.

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.

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?

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

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

And to reiterate: THIS IS GREEN BELT LAND - HOW CAN PLANNING FOR HOUSING BE GRANTED????????