Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Search representations
Results for Ms Ann Dainton search
New searchObject
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
EL1, EL2, EL3 Land east of Luton
Representation ID: 211
Received: 18/10/2016
Respondent: Ms Ann Dainton
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to the development of 660 dwellings adjacent to Copthorne, Luton:
Exitsing roads could not cope with additional traffic;
No improvements to the road infrastructure;
SUDs should not be located close to airports;
Development of flats would be out of character with the area;
Effect of infrastructure, including schools and healthcare;
Loss of green belt land; and
Loss of recreation opportunities.
North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031 -
Proposed Submission Local Plan Consultation
Wednesday 19 October 2016 to Wednesday 30 November 2016
With regards to the above planning application I wish to register my strongest possible objections to this development of 660 dwellings adjacent to Copthorne, Luton.
No proper regard seems to have been taken in respect of improving the road infrastructure. The minor alterations listed on the planning application would have little or no effect. The existing roads cannot currently cope with rush hour traffic in the mornings and evenings. Eaton Green Road, Crawley Green Road, A505, East Circular are nearly almost stationary. The road network could not possibly cope with any increase in traffic from any developments built in this area. At peak times it can take up to an hour to get to and from Junction 10 of the M1. There is also the added problem of expansion at Luton Airport which would certainly add to traffic problems.
Many local roads in the vicinity of the proposed site are narrow country lanes with single track stretches and they too would be unable to cope with the increased traffic, particularly public transport vehicles and large vans and lorries which will be required to serve the development.
I noticed on the plans that there are three proposed footpaths, cycle ways adjoining Copthorne to the new estate this will encourage people to use Copthorne as a cut through as well as a safe place to park their vehicles as it says in the plan that there is only one garage/parking per dwelling. As for the ridiculous suggestion that most people will be using cycles and walking, DREAM ON.
I noticed also that surface drainage is going to be collected in three unfenced ponds (SUDS). Government rules state that (SUDS) should not be located close to airports as they could encourage flocks of birds which could endanger aircraft with bird strikes.
I noticed from the layout of the plan that the high density/social housing have been placed closest to the County View estate which mainly consists of 3, 4 and 5 bedroomed detached properties and will most certainly not blend in with these existing properties. I understand that 40% of this development is going to be affordable housing with the possibility of flats which is totally out of character with the area.
I understand that there are no plans for schools or infrastructure upgrades until after the site has been completed. The GP surgeries in the area are over subscribed and one dental surgery is not taking on any new patients. Local schools at Cockernhoe and Wigmore are already over subscribed. The application does not indicate where the additional children will be educated.
I feel that your development, which is in Hertfordshire, should not be entitled to Luton's services and as a local rate payer I should not be subsiding Hertfordshire rate payers. It seems you are dumping all Hertfordshire's problems on the Bedfordshire rate payers. Luton Borough Council have not done any air particulate studies into air quality in our area, in spite of there being a massive airport expansion going ahead. Nor have they conducted traffic studies to address the terrible congestion in the surrounding area.
This development would destroy a large amount of North Herts Green Belt land. Government policy on Green Belt land is completely ignored in this proposal. Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl.
Also, I understand that the area you are proposing to build on is under consideration to be included as an area Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and was at one time Grade 'A' agricultural land but in your latest bulletin this is no longer the case, how convenient.
Many people from the area use the surrounding countryside for recreational purposes, walking, cycling, and taking an interest in the wildlife. The villages of Tea Green and Cockernhoe should not be allowed to be swallowed up by the town of Luton in this way.
Once again I strongly object to any of the proposed developments as this is an overwhelming number of dwellings for such a small area.
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Policy SP19: Sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 - East of Luton
Representation ID: 213
Received: 27/10/2016
Respondent: Ms Ann Dainton
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): 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:-
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 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 has not 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 5,000+ 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 out 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 does not exist has not 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 and the A1 through Offley.
The paths and woodlands are used by villagers and people from neighbouring Luton as a leisure area for walking, running, cycling and other leisure activities. 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 the proposed development.
Teeming wildlife, owl, bats, deer, etc; will be displaced. Wildlife corridors are no substitute.
In addition to the above the local schools, nursery places, GP surgeries and dental practices are already oversubscribed, having to wait up to two weeks for a doctor's appointment.
Parking and infrastructure at the local shops/supermarket is woefully inadequate.
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
EL1, EL2, EL3 Land east of Luton
Representation ID: 214
Received: 18/10/2016
Respondent: Ms Ann Dainton
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, and biodiversity.
North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Local
Plan Consultation Wednesday 19 October 2016 to Wednesday 30 November
2016
With regards to the above planning application I wish to register my strongest possible objections to this development of 660 dwellings adjacent to Copthorne, Luton.
No proper regard seems to have been taken in respect of improving the road infrastructure. The minor alterations listed on the planning application would have little or no effect. The existing roads cannot currently cope with rush hour traffic in the mornings and evenings. Eaton Green Road, Crawley Green Road, A505, East Circular are nearly almost stationary. The road network could not possibly cope with any increase in traffic from any developments built in this area. At peak times it can take up to an hour to get to and from Junction 10 of the M1. There is also the added problem of expansion at Luton Airport which would certainly add to traffic problems.
Many local roads in the vicinity of the proposed site are narrow country lanes with single track stretches and they too would be unable to cope with the increased traffic, particularly public transport vehicles and large vans and lorries which will be required to serve the development.
I noticed on the plans that there are three proposed footpaths, cycle ways adjoining Copthorne to the new estate this will encourage people to use Copthorne as a cut through as well as a safe place to park their vehicles as it says in the plan that there is only one garage/parking per dwelling. As for the ridiculous suggestion that most people will be using cycles and walking, DREAM ON.
I noticed also that surface drainage is going to be collected in three unfenced ponds (SUDS). Government rules state that (SUDS) should not be located close to airports as they could encourage flocks of birds which could endanger aircraft with bird strikes.
I noticed from the layout of the plan that the high density/social housing have been placed closest to the County View estate which mainly consists of 3, 4 and 5 bedroomed detached properties and will most certainly not blend in with these existing properties. I understand that 40% of this development is going to be affordable housing with the possibility of flats which is totally out of character with the area.
I understand that there are no plans for schools or infrastructure upgrades until after the site has been completed. The GP surgeries in the area are over subscribed and one dental surgery is not taking on any new patients. Local schools at Cockernhoe and Wigmore are already over subscribed. The application does not indicate where the additional children will be educated.
I feel that your development, which is in Hertfordshire, should not be entitled to Luton's services and as a local rate payer I should not be subsiding Hertfordshire rate payers. It seems you are dumping all Hertfordshire's problems on the Bedfordshire rate payers. Luton Borough Council have not done any air particulate studies into air quality in our area, in spite of there being a massive airport expansion going ahead. Nor have they conducted traffic studies to address the terrible congestion in the surrounding area.
This development would destroy a large amount of North Herts Green Belt land. Government policy on Green Belt land is completely ignored in this proposal. Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl.
Also, I understand that the area you are proposing to build on is under consideration to be included as an area Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and was at one time Grade 'A' agricultural land but in your latest bulletin this is no longer the case, how convenient.
Many people from the area use the surrounding countryside for recreational purposes, walking, cycling, and taking an interest in the wildlife. The villages of Tea Green and Cockernhoe should not be allowed to be swallowed up by the town of Luton in this way.
Once again I strongly object to any of the proposed developments as this is an overwhelming number of dwellings for such a small area.
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Policy SP8: Housing
Representation ID: 2031
Received: 18/10/2016
Respondent: Ms Ann Dainton
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP8: Luton's unmet needs not qualified, sufficient brownfield land in Luton
North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031 -
Proposed Submission Local Plan Consultation
Wednesday 19 October 2016 to Wednesday 30 November 2016
With regards to the above planning application I wish to register my strongest possible objections to this development of 660 dwellings adjacent to Copthorne, Luton.
No proper regard seems to have been taken in respect of improving the road infrastructure. The minor alterations listed on the planning application would have little or no effect. The existing roads cannot currently cope with rush hour traffic in the mornings and evenings. Eaton Green Road, Crawley Green Road, A505, East Circular are nearly almost stationary. The road network could not possibly cope with any increase in traffic from any developments built in this area. At peak times it can take up to an hour to get to and from Junction 10 of the M1. There is also the added problem of expansion at Luton Airport which would certainly add to traffic problems.
Many local roads in the vicinity of the proposed site are narrow country lanes with single track stretches and they too would be unable to cope with the increased traffic, particularly public transport vehicles and large vans and lorries which will be required to serve the development.
I noticed on the plans that there are three proposed footpaths, cycle ways adjoining Copthorne to the new estate this will encourage people to use Copthorne as a cut through as well as a safe place to park their vehicles as it says in the plan that there is only one garage/parking per dwelling. As for the ridiculous suggestion that most people will be using cycles and walking, DREAM ON.
I noticed also that surface drainage is going to be collected in three unfenced ponds (SUDS). Government rules state that (SUDS) should not be located close to airports as they could encourage flocks of birds which could endanger aircraft with bird strikes.
I noticed from the layout of the plan that the high density/social housing have been placed closest to the County View estate which mainly consists of 3, 4 and 5 bedroomed detached properties and will most certainly not blend in with these existing properties. I understand that 40% of this development is going to be affordable housing with the possibility of flats which is totally out of character with the area.
I understand that there are no plans for schools or infrastructure upgrades until after the site has been completed. The GP surgeries in the area are over subscribed and one dental surgery is not taking on any new patients. Local schools at Cockernhoe and Wigmore are already over subscribed. The application does not indicate where the additional children will be educated.
I feel that your development, which is in Hertfordshire, should not be entitled to Luton's services and as a local rate payer I should not be subsiding Hertfordshire rate payers. It seems you are dumping all Hertfordshire's problems on the Bedfordshire rate payers. Luton Borough Council have not done any air particulate studies into air quality in our area, in spite of there being a massive airport expansion going ahead. Nor have they conducted traffic studies to address the terrible congestion in the surrounding area.
This development would destroy a large amount of North Herts Green Belt land. Government policy on Green Belt land is completely ignored in this proposal. Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl.
Also, I understand that the area you are proposing to build on is under consideration to be included as an area Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and was at one time Grade 'A' agricultural land but in your latest bulletin this is no longer the case, how convenient.
Many people from the area use the surrounding countryside for recreational purposes, walking, cycling, and taking an interest in the wildlife. The villages of Tea Green and Cockernhoe should not be allowed to be swallowed up by the town of Luton in this way.
Once again I strongly object to any of the proposed developments as this is an overwhelming number of dwellings for such a small area.
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Policy SP8: Housing
Representation ID: 2046
Received: 27/10/2016
Respondent: Ms Ann Dainton
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP8: 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:-
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 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 has not 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 5,000+ 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 out 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 does not exist has not 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 and the A1 through Offley.
The paths and woodlands are used by villagers and people from neighbouring Luton as a leisure area for walking, running, cycling and other leisure activities. 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 the proposed development.
Teeming wildlife, owl, bats, deer, etc; will be displaced. Wildlife corridors are no substitute.
In addition to the above the local schools, nursery places, GP surgeries and dental practices are already oversubscribed, having to wait up to two weeks for a doctor's appointment.
Parking and infrastructure at the local shops/supermarket is woefully inadequate.
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Policy SP8: Housing
Representation ID: 2055
Received: 18/10/2016
Respondent: Ms Ann Dainton
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP8: Luton's unmet needs not qualified, sufficient brownfield land in Luton.
North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Local
Plan Consultation Wednesday 19 October 2016 to Wednesday 30 November
2016
With regards to the above planning application I wish to register my strongest possible objections to this development of 660 dwellings adjacent to Copthorne, Luton.
No proper regard seems to have been taken in respect of improving the road infrastructure. The minor alterations listed on the planning application would have little or no effect. The existing roads cannot currently cope with rush hour traffic in the mornings and evenings. Eaton Green Road, Crawley Green Road, A505, East Circular are nearly almost stationary. The road network could not possibly cope with any increase in traffic from any developments built in this area. At peak times it can take up to an hour to get to and from Junction 10 of the M1. There is also the added problem of expansion at Luton Airport which would certainly add to traffic problems.
Many local roads in the vicinity of the proposed site are narrow country lanes with single track stretches and they too would be unable to cope with the increased traffic, particularly public transport vehicles and large vans and lorries which will be required to serve the development.
I noticed on the plans that there are three proposed footpaths, cycle ways adjoining Copthorne to the new estate this will encourage people to use Copthorne as a cut through as well as a safe place to park their vehicles as it says in the plan that there is only one garage/parking per dwelling. As for the ridiculous suggestion that most people will be using cycles and walking, DREAM ON.
I noticed also that surface drainage is going to be collected in three unfenced ponds (SUDS). Government rules state that (SUDS) should not be located close to airports as they could encourage flocks of birds which could endanger aircraft with bird strikes.
I noticed from the layout of the plan that the high density/social housing have been placed closest to the County View estate which mainly consists of 3, 4 and 5 bedroomed detached properties and will most certainly not blend in with these existing properties. I understand that 40% of this development is going to be affordable housing with the possibility of flats which is totally out of character with the area.
I understand that there are no plans for schools or infrastructure upgrades until after the site has been completed. The GP surgeries in the area are over subscribed and one dental surgery is not taking on any new patients. Local schools at Cockernhoe and Wigmore are already over subscribed. The application does not indicate where the additional children will be educated.
I feel that your development, which is in Hertfordshire, should not be entitled to Luton's services and as a local rate payer I should not be subsiding Hertfordshire rate payers. It seems you are dumping all Hertfordshire's problems on the Bedfordshire rate payers. Luton Borough Council have not done any air particulate studies into air quality in our area, in spite of there being a massive airport expansion going ahead. Nor have they conducted traffic studies to address the terrible congestion in the surrounding area.
This development would destroy a large amount of North Herts Green Belt land. Government policy on Green Belt land is completely ignored in this proposal. Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl.
Also, I understand that the area you are proposing to build on is under consideration to be included as an area Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and was at one time Grade 'A' agricultural land but in your latest bulletin this is no longer the case, how convenient.
Many people from the area use the surrounding countryside for recreational purposes, walking, cycling, and taking an interest in the wildlife. The villages of Tea Green and Cockernhoe should not be allowed to be swallowed up by the town of Luton in this way.
Once again I strongly object to any of the proposed developments as this is an overwhelming number of dwellings for such a small area.