Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Search representations
Results for Mr Derek Bremner search
New searchObject
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Policy SP19: Sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 - East of Luton
Representation ID: 3086
Received: 28/11/2016
Respondent: Mr Derek Bremner
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19 - EL1, EL2 and EL3:
- Building on the Green Belt
- Brownfield Sites
- Health facilities at capacity
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Air quality and pollution from Luton airport
- Transport Assessments
- The Plan is not deliverable
- Community infrastructure
- Scale of development
- Public services
- Village Character and heritage
- Air and noise pollution
- Housing assessment
- Brexit
I strongly object to the NHDC Local Plan 2011-2031.
Infrastructure and transportation networks are inadequately addressed in the parts of the plan relating sites East of Luton, to meet Luton's Unmet Housing Need East of Luton. I object that there is no justifiable need to declassify Land East of Luton from the Green Belt. There are many viable alternatives, so the Local Plan is not in accordance with the National Framework Planning Policy since it is not "absolutely necessary." I wish to change this plan. I want to participate in the Examination.
This will impact all of Luton; Wigmore, Stopsley, Eaton Green, and even Round Green, Stockingstone Road, and even the over-stretched Luton and Dunstable Hospital!
Building 2,105 upwards houses will lead to unacceptable problematic congestion consequences for this area, especially in the light of the airport's vast expansion which planned simultaneously for this side of town. Air quality and pollution has not be assessed in the residential areas around the airport.
The Transport Assessments were not robust. The their data was inadequate and inaccurate; they did not include impacts of all new developments in the vicinity, they were not carried out for long enough, and some studies from Luton Borough Council assumed roads that did not even exist. Traffic congestion in Wigmore is unacceptable levels.
Both LBC and NHDC have noted concerns over lack of necessary infrastructure and inadequate road networks due to the already existent congestion.
The Plan is not deliverable if the basic required infrastructure and transportation access has not been delivered also.
If you consider that Cockernhoe is 50 houses, the expansion threat is a huge 4,200 per cent!! This is disproportionate.
Wigmore currently consists of about 4,500 houses, so this proposal is an unacceptably disproportionate level of expansion on that side too. 2105 houses is like taking half the size of the entire Wigmore Area, and sticking it onto the side all over again.
Therefore logic would dictate that all other infrastructure must also be matched by an expansion of 50 per cent too - so half of every public service available in Wigmore; ranging from shops and retail outlets, car parks, secondary and primary schools, petrol stations, policing services, fire services, health services, dental services must all be also expanded to that same degree. Where will the money for all this come from? The developers will not be paying for any of it.
Cockernhoe Village will no longer even exist. It would destroy an entire rural community and displace a village. It would change the character of the area to an unacceptable degree.
There have been no mitigating solutions to the air and noise pollution that will be generated from the extra cars, or the airport expansion in this area.
The unmet housing need figure also shows inaccuracies. During Executive Meetings LBC stated the need for a collaboration between neighbouring councils to commission another Strategic Housing Management Assessment to re-examine once more the Unmet Housing Need figure assumptions, due to their estimated nature but far-reaching consequences and drastic impact upon the area. Luton's unmet housing need figure is based on migration statistics. The Plan does not consider how Brexit will affect these either.
So consider this written address that I wish to change the Local Plan and participate in the Examination.
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Policy SP8: Housing
Representation ID: 3390
Received: 29/11/2016
Respondent: Mr Derek Bremner
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Luton's unmet needs not qualified, sufficient brownfield land in Luton
I strongly object to the outline North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011- 2031 especially the sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 which affect the areas of Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green, Tea Green, Copthorne, Rochford Drive, Putteridgebury, Wandon End, Wigmore and Brick kiln Lane, for the following reasons: Please tick all of the issues that concern you (all if necessary!) .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.
1.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.
There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: 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.
There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: 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.
There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: 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.
2.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.
3.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?
4.There is sufficient brown field land in Luton to accommodate 'Luton's Unmet Need' at the same housing density as this proposed development.
5.Teeming wildlife, owl, bats, deer, etc., will be displaced. Wildlife corridors are no substitute
In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
THERE IS NO PLANNED IMPROVEMENT TO THE ALREADY STRETCHED ROADS/INFRASTRUCTURE:
Also there is no planned provision for adequate schools, medical centre or recreation facility for a development of this size!
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Policy SP19: Sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 - East of Luton
Representation ID: 3391
Received: 29/11/2016
Respondent: Mr Derek Bremner
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity
I strongly object to the outline North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011- 2031 especially the sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 which affect the areas of Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green, Tea Green, Copthorne, Rochford Drive, Putteridgebury, Wandon End, Wigmore and Brick kiln Lane, for the following reasons: Please tick all of the issues that concern you (all if necessary!) .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.
1.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.
There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: 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.
There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: 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.
There is no planned improvement to the already stretched roads/infrastructure: 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.
2.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.
3.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?
4.There is sufficient brown field land in Luton to accommodate 'Luton's Unmet Need' at the same housing density as this proposed development.
5.Teeming wildlife, owl, bats, deer, etc., will be displaced. Wildlife corridors are no substitute
In addition to the above the reason I feel most strongly that this development should not go ahead is -
THERE IS NO PLANNED IMPROVEMENT TO THE ALREADY STRETCHED ROADS/INFRASTRUCTURE:
Also there is no planned provision for adequate schools, medical centre or recreation facility for a development of this size!