Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Search representations
Results for Mrs S Chalkley search
New searchObject
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
KB1 Land at Deards End
Representation ID: 3965
Received: 27/11/2016
Respondent: Mrs S Chalkley
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to KB4:
- Local Infrastructure needs
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Narrow rail way bridges
- Reduction in rail services and parking constraints
- Site access
- Pedestrian infrastructure and safety
- Wildlife and biodiversity
- Green Belt Removal
- Air pollution
- Not consistent with the NPPF
- Loss of Agricultural land
- Local economy
- Scale of development
- Land West of Stevenage
The local infrastructure needs have certainly not been considered to absorb all these extra houses.
There is one road the B197 which stretches from junction 6 of the A1M passing through Mardley Hill, Woolmer Green, Knebworth through to Stevenage.
When there are any problems on the A1M - which is generally two or three times a week - motorists will use the B197 which causes tail-back problems and often gridlock in Knebworth village centre.
In the morning rush hours it has taken me 45 minutes to get from Knebworth to junction 6 of the A1M which is only about 4 miles even before any extra traffic from the proposed developments.
In Knebworth access to the west side planned development (KB1 and KB2 , 200 dwellings, 184 dwellings plus primary school) is by 2 narrow low railway bridges. There is also access in Woolmer Green by a narrow low railway bridge. A
few years ago an application for a senior school in Woolmer Green on the field by this railway bridge was turned down one of the main reasons being lack of proper access. Why is access not considered a problem in this instance?
The bridges are too narrow and in Knebworth have blind bends leading up to them. There is also only a narrow path down one side and the road is single track. Pedestrians have to walk in the road when passing each other, especially when
pushchairs are involved. A friend of mine was actually hit on the hand by a car while walking under the bridge which she reported to the police. How can these bridges sustain yet more traffic?
Access to Knebworth can also be made from the B197 from Mardley Hill at Canonsfield Road which then turns into mostly single track lane - Pottersheath Road, Spinney Lane, Wych Elm Lane and finally Gipsy Lane. More traffic will
obviously use this way as a short-cut. More delivery vans, lorries and cars making it very dangerous for pedestrians (no pavements) and cyclists.
Also each Spring there are toads which migrate from one side of Spinney Lane to the other and homemade notices are put out warning motorists to slow down and look out for them. With the increased traffic I certainly fear for the
toads!
Green Belt Removal
The Green Belt land on the KB1 and KB2 sites is a buffer between Gipsy Lane and the A1M and it is a fact that the A1M at this point creates the most pollution due to the motorway merging from three to two lanes thus causing slow traffic every day especially in rush hours.
Also the Green Belt protects the space between Knebworth, Woolmer Green and Stevenage protecting its identity as a village which the residents regard as very important. Green Belt protection is national policy yet the Local Plan is
proposing to remove large areas. Surely the law was introduced to protect exactly these issues so how can it be dismissed so easily and what protection does any Green Belt have in the future?
Also important productive agricultural land will be lost for ever and how is this acceptable.
There is no consideration for the local economy. A key commercial site in the village (KB3) is going but instead of building a mixed use replacement only flats are being
planned.
An incease of at least 663 dwellings in Knebworth between 2011 and 2031 is an increase to the village of 31% which is completely unsustainable with no added infrastructure.
Even the railway station does not have adequate parking creating more congestion in the side roads and the plan from Thameslink is to reduce the fast trains into Kings Cross, not to increase them.
The extra impact of a planned 150 homes in Woolmer Green also appears not to have been considered.
The alternative in my view is the Stevenage West land which is reserved for 3,100 - why has this not been mentioned/considered??
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
KB2 Land off Gypsy Lane
Representation ID: 3966
Received: 27/11/2016
Respondent: Mrs S Chalkley
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to KB2:
- Local Infrastructure needs
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Narrow rail way bridges
- Reduction in rail services and parking constraints
- Site access
- Pedestrian infrastructure and safety
- Wildlife and biodiversity
- Green Belt Removal
- Air pollution
- Not consistent with the NPPF
- Loss of Agricultural land
- Local economy
- Scale of development
- Land West of Stevenage
The local infrastructure needs have certainly not been considered to absorb all these extra houses.
There is one road the B197 which stretches from junction 6 of the A1M passing through Mardley Hill, Woolmer Green, Knebworth through to Stevenage.
When there are any problems on the A1M - which is generally two or three times a week - motorists will use the B197 which causes tail-back problems and often gridlock in Knebworth village centre.
In the morning rush hours it has taken me 45 minutes to get from Knebworth to junction 6 of the A1M which is only about 4 miles even before any extra traffic from the proposed developments.
In Knebworth access to the west side planned development (KB1 and KB2 , 200 dwellings, 184 dwellings plus primary school) is by 2 narrow low railway bridges. There is also access in Woolmer Green by a narrow low railway bridge. A
few years ago an application for a senior school in Woolmer Green on the field by this railway bridge was turned down one of the main reasons being lack of proper access. Why is access not considered a problem in this instance?
The bridges are too narrow and in Knebworth have blind bends leading up to them. There is also only a narrow path down one side and the road is single track. Pedestrians have to walk in the road when passing each other, especially when
pushchairs are involved. A friend of mine was actually hit on the hand by a car while walking under the bridge which she reported to the police. How can these bridges sustain yet more traffic?
Access to Knebworth can also be made from the B197 from Mardley Hill at Canonsfield Road which then turns into mostly single track lane - Pottersheath Road, Spinney Lane, Wych Elm Lane and finally Gipsy Lane. More traffic will
obviously use this way as a short-cut. More delivery vans, lorries and cars making it very dangerous for pedestrians (no pavements) and cyclists.
Also each Spring there are toads which migrate from one side of Spinney Lane to the other and homemade notices are put out warning motorists to slow down and look out for them. With the increased traffic I certainly fear for the
toads!
Green Belt Removal
The Green Belt land on the KB1 and KB2 sites is a buffer between Gipsy Lane and the A1M and it is a fact that the A1M at this point creates the most pollution due to the motorway merging from three to two lanes thus causing slow traffic every day especially in rush hours.
Also the Green Belt protects the space between Knebworth, Woolmer Green and Stevenage protecting its identity as a village which the residents regard as very important. Green Belt protection is national policy yet the Local Plan is
proposing to remove large areas. Surely the law was introduced to protect exactly these issues so how can it be dismissed so easily and what protection does any Green Belt have in the future?
Also important productive agricultural land will be lost for ever and how is this acceptable.
There is no consideration for the local economy. A key commercial site in the village (KB3) is going but instead of building a mixed use replacement only flats are being
planned.
An incease of at least 663 dwellings in Knebworth between 2011 and 2031 is an increase to the village of 31% which is completely unsustainable with no added infrastructure.
Even the railway station does not have adequate parking creating more congestion in the side roads and the plan from Thameslink is to reduce the fast trains into Kings Cross, not to increase them.
The extra impact of a planned 150 homes in Woolmer Green also appears not to have been considered.
The alternative in my view is the Stevenage West land which is reserved for 3,100 - why has this not been mentioned/considered??
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
KB3 Chas Lowe site, London Road
Representation ID: 3967
Received: 27/11/2016
Respondent: Mrs S Chalkley
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to KB3:
- Local Infrastructure needs
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Narrow rail way bridges
- Reduction in rail services and parking constraints
- Site access
- Pedestrian infrastructure and safety
- Wildlife and biodiversity
- Green Belt Removal
- Air pollution
- Not consistent with the NPPF
- Loss of Agricultural land
- Local economy
- Scale of development
- Land West of Stevenage
The local infrastructure needs have certainly not been considered to absorb all these extra houses.
There is one road the B197 which stretches from junction 6 of the A1M passing through Mardley Hill, Woolmer Green, Knebworth through to Stevenage.
When there are any problems on the A1M - which is generally two or three times a week - motorists will use the B197 which causes tail-back problems and often gridlock in Knebworth village centre.
In the morning rush hours it has taken me 45 minutes to get from Knebworth to junction 6 of the A1M which is only about 4 miles even before any extra traffic from the proposed developments.
In Knebworth access to the west side planned development (KB1 and KB2 , 200 dwellings, 184 dwellings plus primary school) is by 2 narrow low railway bridges. There is also access in Woolmer Green by a narrow low railway bridge. A
few years ago an application for a senior school in Woolmer Green on the field by this railway bridge was turned down one of the main reasons being lack of proper access. Why is access not considered a problem in this instance?
The bridges are too narrow and in Knebworth have blind bends leading up to them. There is also only a narrow path down one side and the road is single track. Pedestrians have to walk in the road when passing each other, especially when
pushchairs are involved. A friend of mine was actually hit on the hand by a car while walking under the bridge which she reported to the police. How can these bridges sustain yet more traffic?
Access to Knebworth can also be made from the B197 from Mardley Hill at Canonsfield Road which then turns into mostly single track lane - Pottersheath Road, Spinney Lane, Wych Elm Lane and finally Gipsy Lane. More traffic will
obviously use this way as a short-cut. More delivery vans, lorries and cars making it very dangerous for pedestrians (no pavements) and cyclists.
Also each Spring there are toads which migrate from one side of Spinney Lane to the other and homemade notices are put out warning motorists to slow down and look out for them. With the increased traffic I certainly fear for the
toads!
Green Belt Removal
The Green Belt land on the KB1 and KB2 sites is a buffer between Gipsy Lane and the A1M and it is a fact that the A1M at this point creates the most pollution due to the motorway merging from three to two lanes thus causing slow traffic every day especially in rush hours.
Also the Green Belt protects the space between Knebworth, Woolmer Green and Stevenage protecting its identity as a village which the residents regard as very important. Green Belt protection is national policy yet the Local Plan is
proposing to remove large areas. Surely the law was introduced to protect exactly these issues so how can it be dismissed so easily and what protection does any Green Belt have in the future?
Also important productive agricultural land will be lost for ever and how is this acceptable.
There is no consideration for the local economy. A key commercial site in the village (KB3) is going but instead of building a mixed use replacement only flats are being
planned.
An incease of at least 663 dwellings in Knebworth between 2011 and 2031 is an increase to the village of 31% which is completely unsustainable with no added infrastructure.
Even the railway station does not have adequate parking creating more congestion in the side roads and the plan from Thameslink is to reduce the fast trains into Kings Cross, not to increase them.
The extra impact of a planned 150 homes in Woolmer Green also appears not to have been considered.
The alternative in my view is the Stevenage West land which is reserved for 3,100 - why has this not been mentioned/considered??
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
KB4 Land east of Knebworth
Representation ID: 3968
Received: 27/11/2016
Respondent: Mrs S Chalkley
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to KB4:
- Local Infrastructure needs
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Narrow rail way bridges
- Reduction in rail services and parking constraints
- Site access
- Pedestrian infrastructure and safety
- Wildlife and biodiversity
- Green Belt Removal
- Air pollution
- Not consistent with the NPPF
- Loss of Agricultural land
- Local economy
- Scale of development
- Land West of Stevenage
The local infrastructure needs have certainly not been considered to absorb all these extra houses.
There is one road the B197 which stretches from junction 6 of the A1M passing through Mardley Hill, Woolmer Green, Knebworth through to Stevenage.
When there are any problems on the A1M - which is generally two or three times a week - motorists will use the B197 which causes tail-back problems and often gridlock in Knebworth village centre.
In the morning rush hours it has taken me 45 minutes to get from Knebworth to junction 6 of the A1M which is only about 4 miles even before any extra traffic from the proposed developments.
In Knebworth access to the west side planned development (KB1 and KB2 , 200 dwellings, 184 dwellings plus primary school) is by 2 narrow low railway bridges. There is also access in Woolmer Green by a narrow low railway bridge. A
few years ago an application for a senior school in Woolmer Green on the field by this railway bridge was turned down one of the main reasons being lack of proper access. Why is access not considered a problem in this instance?
The bridges are too narrow and in Knebworth have blind bends leading up to them. There is also only a narrow path down one side and the road is single track. Pedestrians have to walk in the road when passing each other, especially when
pushchairs are involved. A friend of mine was actually hit on the hand by a car while walking under the bridge which she reported to the police. How can these bridges sustain yet more traffic?
Access to Knebworth can also be made from the B197 from Mardley Hill at Canonsfield Road which then turns into mostly single track lane - Pottersheath Road, Spinney Lane, Wych Elm Lane and finally Gipsy Lane. More traffic will
obviously use this way as a short-cut. More delivery vans, lorries and cars making it very dangerous for pedestrians (no pavements) and cyclists.
Also each Spring there are toads which migrate from one side of Spinney Lane to the other and homemade notices are put out warning motorists to slow down and look out for them. With the increased traffic I certainly fear for the
toads!
Green Belt Removal
The Green Belt land on the KB1 and KB2 sites is a buffer between Gipsy Lane and the A1M and it is a fact that the A1M at this point creates the most pollution due to the motorway merging from three to two lanes thus causing slow traffic every day especially in rush hours.
Also the Green Belt protects the space between Knebworth, Woolmer Green and Stevenage protecting its identity as a village which the residents regard as very important. Green Belt protection is national policy yet the Local Plan is
proposing to remove large areas. Surely the law was introduced to protect exactly these issues so how can it be dismissed so easily and what protection does any Green Belt have in the future?
Also important productive agricultural land will be lost for ever and how is this acceptable.
There is no consideration for the local economy. A key commercial site in the village (KB3) is going but instead of building a mixed use replacement only flats are being
planned.
An incease of at least 663 dwellings in Knebworth between 2011 and 2031 is an increase to the village of 31% which is completely unsustainable with no added infrastructure.
Even the railway station does not have adequate parking creating more congestion in the side roads and the plan from Thameslink is to reduce the fast trains into Kings Cross, not to increase them.
The extra impact of a planned 150 homes in Woolmer Green also appears not to have been considered.
The alternative in my view is the Stevenage West land which is reserved for 3,100 - why has this not been mentioned/considered??