Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

We are writing about those aspects of the NHDC Local Plan relating to the village of Codicote. We have two broad objections to the plan: the first is the loss of green belt and the second is the failure to provide the necessary improvements to infrastructure that the proposed increase in housing will require. We are also concerned about affordability of new homes.

Green Belt
At the inception of the plan the defined settlement boundary of Codicote was extended to include three parcels of green belt land. Paragraph 4.53 of the plan indicates that this will be done to "enable development to meet locally identified needs". However, as the deadline for completion drew close a fourth parcel of green belt land (CD5) was added which enabled the projected number of houses to be almost doubled to 315. This suggests a pragmatic approach on the part of the council taking up land that was offered rather than considering local needs (unless, of course, the original estimate of local needs was too low by a factor of two). Our contention is that the driving force lies with the London housing market where government has failed to curb speculative development of expensive luxury flats thereby forcing Londoners to move out of town. National newspapers have identified the Stevenage area as a desirable commuter location (see for example the Daily Telegraph Financial Section 9 October 2015 and 8 January 2016). The problem for our community is that once this green belt land has been released for development it is gone - for ever. Further, area CD1 is adjacent to a Local Wildlife site. It is important for planners to appreciate that wildlife has no understanding of human boundaries: if animals are disturbed they will leave, never to return. Our forebears understood these things which is why they created the green belt policy. We cannot dilute it when it becomes inconvenient.

Affordability
Policy SP8 promises that 33 - 40% of houses built will be affordable for local needs. So far in Codicote this has not happened. In the last two years nine houses have been erected along St. Albans Road to the north east of our house where previously there were three. Construction of a tenth has started in the last few weeks. All these houses have been large, high-specification family homes with prices to match. As far as we are aware no affordable homes have been built anywhere in the village during the same time period. It is clear that some mechanism needs to be put in place to ensure that the promise of affordable homes is kept.

Infrastructure
We are concerned about the impact on the infrastructure that a 25% increase in the housing stock of Codicote will have. This concern is shared by our neighbours who have raised the issue of the local school. We are pleased to note that the council has listened to this objection and has included an extension of the school in the plan.

However, there is still an issue with medical facilities: the nearest doctor's surgery is at Welwyn. This is already overloaded to the extent that appointments have to be made 2 - 3 weeks in advance. A 25% increase in the number of patients is not going to improve matters. It is therefore essential that some form of medical amenity be provided as part of the plan.

Finally there is the question of transport. The plan indicates a trend towards out-commuting (paragraph 4.26). Since the plan for Codicote is focussed entirely on housing and makes no mention of employment we can assume that all the new inhabitants will need to travel elsewhere to work daily. The assertion in paragraph 13.81 that modelling indicates no need to enhance transport is frankly unbelievable. The B656 is already overloaded at peak times. Relative to its size the lane to Wheathamstead is busy all day; with the amount of industrial traffic this now carries it is positively dangerous for children, adult pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.

We are writing about those aspects of the NHDC Local Plan relating to the village of Codicote. We have two broad objections to the plan: the first is the loss of green belt and the second is the failure to provide the necessary improvements to infrastructure that the proposed increase in housing will require. We are also concerned about affordability of new homes.

Green Belt
At the inception of the plan the defined settlement boundary of Codicote was extended to include three parcels of green belt land. Paragraph 4.53 of the plan indicates that this will be done to "enable development to meet locally identified needs". However, as the deadline for completion drew close a fourth parcel of green belt land (CD5) was added which enabled the projected number of houses to be almost doubled to 315. This suggests a pragmatic approach on the part of the council taking up land that was offered rather than considering local needs (unless, of course, the original estimate of local needs was too low by a factor of two). Our contention is that the driving force lies with the London housing market where government has failed to curb speculative development of expensive luxury flats thereby forcing Londoners to move out of town. National newspapers have identified the Stevenage area as a desirable commuter location (see for example the Daily Telegraph Financial Section 9 October 2015 and 8 January 2016). The problem for our community is that once this green belt land has been released for development it is gone - for ever. Further, area CD1 is adjacent to a Local Wildlife site. It is important for planners to appreciate that wildlife has no understanding of human boundaries: if animals are disturbed they will leave, never to return. Our forebears understood these things which is why they created the green belt policy. We cannot dilute it when it becomes inconvenient.

Affordability
Policy SP8 promises that 33 - 40% of houses built will be affordable for local needs. So far in Codicote this has not happened. In the last two years nine houses have been erected along St. Albans Road to the north east of our house where previously there were three. Construction of a tenth has started in the last few weeks. All these houses have been large, high-specification family homes with prices to match. As far as we are aware no affordable homes have been built anywhere in the village during the same time period. It is clear that some mechanism needs to be put in place to ensure that the promise of affordable homes is kept.

Infrastructure
We are concerned about the impact on the infrastructure that a 25% increase in the housing stock of Codicote will have. This concern is shared by our neighbours who have raised the issue of the local school. We are pleased to note that the council has listened to this objection and has included an extension of the school in the plan.

However, there is still an issue with medical facilities: the nearest doctor's surgery is at Welwyn. This is already overloaded to the extent that appointments have to be made 2 - 3 weeks in advance. A 25% increase in the number of patients is not going to improve matters. It is therefore essential that some form of medical amenity be provided as part of the plan.

Finally there is the question of transport. The plan indicates a trend towards out-commuting (paragraph 4.26). Since the plan for Codicote is focussed entirely on housing and makes no mention of employment we can assume that all the new inhabitants will need to travel elsewhere to work daily. The assertion in paragraph 13.81 that modelling indicates no need to enhance transport is frankly unbelievable. The B656 is already overloaded at peak times. Relative to its size the lane to Wheathamstead is busy all day; with the amount of industrial traffic this now carries it is positively dangerous for children, adult pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.