Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

I wish to make representations regarding the above plan to be placed before the Inspector. I am not using your form as its layout does not suit the comments I wish to make.

I wish to object formally to proposals KB1, KB2 and KB4.

GREEN BELT
The existing Green Belt around Knebworth was established to prevent development and uncontrolled urban expansion. Government policy requires that all development in the Green Belt should be rejected unless there are specific overriding requirements for that development. No such requirements have been put forward leading to the obvious assumption that they exist.
Policies KB1 and KB2 propose the creation of areas of defendable Green Belt to the North of KB1 and the South of KB2. It is the existing Green Belt that must be defended. If that does not happen, clearly North Herts cannot be trusted to protect any Green Belt which is necessary to maintain the identity of the village, prevent coalescence with adjoining settlements and protect high quality agricultural land.

Other Objections should not be necessary but in view of North Herts apparent intention to ignore the Government's Green Belt requirements they clearly are.

TRAFFIC
Paragraphs 13.195 and 13.196 set out the traffic problems as existing. Paragraph 13.197 ducks responsibility for dealing with them. At peak periods, and that is not just the rush hour, the centre of the village is completely gridlocked. In the morning rush hour the B197 is often blocked as far as J6 of the A1(M), and in the afternoon rush hour as far as Tesco at the Roebuck.

The two railway bridges at Station Road and Gun Road are both accidents waiting to happen. Both are low and narrow with narrow pavements on one side only. The Western approaches to both are from the Northwest where drivers are often blinded by the morning sun.

The above are existing problems which would be greatly exacerbated by increasing the population by 30% as you propose especially if any new homes are occupied by a high percentage of commuters. This is especially true of the bridge issues in relation to sites KB1 and KB2 with a total of 384 additional dwellings proposed where most owners would probably be two car families or worse. The end result is likely to be total gridlock and not just when motorway traffic is diverted through the village.

RAILWAY
Commuter trains are already arriving full at Knebworth and commuter parking is as you know a increasing problem. Now the frequency of trains may be downgraded and you are proposing a massive new residential development in Baldock, further up the line. Also there are proposals for more development in surrounding villages where the commuters use Knebworth station and park in the surrounding streets. Is it intended that the whole village will eventually be double yellow banded?

Clearly your proposals are likely to make these problems unacceptably worse.

DRAINAGE
Your draft finally acknowledges these issues, but no large scale development of the nature you propose can take place before they are actually dealt with. This presumably includes the major undertaking of a new sewage link to Rye Meads, about 11 miles as the crow flies.

With specific reference to KB2 I presume in the absence of any comment to the contrary that it is intended to leave the developer to resolve the flooding problems. As you know there were severe floods in 1989 and 2014 when a number of houses in Orchard Way and Broom Grove were flooded at considerable cost and anguish to the residents due to extreme weather (which is on the increase due to climate change), failure to maintain existing drains including those serving the motorway and the natural lines of drainage across the Northern half of KB2 and along Gypsy Lane from both ends. After the 1989 flood, I understand that a drainage maintenance scheme was put in place but this was subsequently an unacceptable victim of recession. Any development on this site would clearly need to be carried out by a single developer with a new drainage maintenance scheme put in place and guaranteed in perpetuity. Clearly a ploughed field soaks up water better than a housing estate, so any scheme must be very robust and include the existing carriageway of Gypsy Lane.
IF AS A RESULT OF ANY DEVELOPMENT ON THAT PART OF KB2 NORTH OF GYPSY APPROVED BY NORTH HERTS DC THE FLOODING PROBLEMS IN ORCHARD WAY AND BROOM GROVE GET WORSE IN EXTENT OR FREQUENCY THEN NORTH HERTS DC WILL BE CULPABLE.

OTHER VILLAGE FACILITIES
13.183 states that Knebworth offers a good range of facilities, but these are of course only suitable for the existing population.

13.200 The proposed new surgery and library building offers one extra consulting room necessary for the current population and a downgraded library to volunteer operation with insufficient parking. Both will be totally inadequate for even a small increase in population and therefore a waste of money.

There is a provision for a new primary school in KB2, although no suggestion precisely where or how it would be accessed. I suspect this has not yet even been considered. A similar provision was made in 1976 when the Orchard Way estate was built. It never happened and the site became Bellamy Close many years later. Will this promise go the same way?

13.192 The council should also consider that the existing village school (like all others) is a cause of traffic congestion twice a day and any new school would create a similar problem.

No consideration has been given to employment for the new residents which strengthens the view tat most, if not all, would be commuters.

KB3 I presume the designation of this site for housing only is an error. The frontage to the High St at ground floor level should of course be commercial with residential above and behind.

CONCLUSION
I consider that as far as it concerns Knebworth this is not a properly considered Draft District plan. Apart from the capacity of Rye Meads none of the potential problems of the proposals have been given full consideration, nor do the Council appear to have carried out the necessary liaison with other responsible bodies, para 13.197 being an example.
Its North Herts District Plan so liaison responsibility is theirs.
It appears that the North Herts thought process has been:-
Can we put any more houses round Knebworth?
Yes, there are a couple of farmers who want to sell their land.
Its Green Belt.
Oh never mind.
Full stop.
This is certainly true in the case of KB2 which has been touted in several previous consultation documents with North Herts making it clear at that time that it was the landowner's proposal not theirs.

In view of all the above comments I strongly feel that the Inspector should reject all the proposed allocation for housing in sites KB1, KB2 and KB4. If he or she is minded to let a small part of it through it should not be in the Northern half of KB2 because of the drainage issues.

I wish to make representations regarding the above plan to be placed before the Inspector. I am not using your form as its layout does not suit the comments I wish to make.

I wish to object formally to proposals KB1, KB2 and KB4.

GREEN BELT
The existing Green Belt around Knebworth was established to prevent development and uncontrolled urban expansion. Government policy requires that all development in the Green Belt should be rejected unless there are specific overriding requirements for that development. No such requirements have been put forward leading to the obvious assumption that they exist.
Policies KB1 and KB2 propose the creation of areas of defendable Green Belt to the North of KB1 and the South of KB2. It is the existing Green Belt that must be defended. If that does not happen, clearly North Herts cannot be trusted to protect any Green Belt which is necessary to maintain the identity of the village, prevent coalescence with adjoining settlements and protect high quality agricultural land.

Other Objections should not be necessary but in view of North Herts apparent intention to ignore the Government's Green Belt requirements they clearly are.

TRAFFIC
Paragraphs 13.195 and 13.196 set out the traffic problems as existing. Paragraph 13.197 ducks responsibility for dealing with them. At peak periods, and that is not just the rush hour, the centre of the village is completely gridlocked. In the morning rush hour the B197 is often blocked as far as J6 of the A1(M), and in the afternoon rush hour as far as Tesco at the Roebuck.

The two railway bridges at Station Road and Gun Road are both accidents waiting to happen. Both are low and narrow with narrow pavements on one side only. The Western approaches to both are from the Northwest where drivers are often blinded by the morning sun.

The above are existing problems which would be greatly exacerbated by increasing the population by 30% as you propose especially if any new homes are occupied by a high percentage of commuters. This is especially true of the bridge issues in relation to sites KB1 and KB2 with a total of 384 additional dwellings proposed where most owners would probably be two car families or worse. The end result is likely to be total gridlock and not just when motorway traffic is diverted through the village.

RAILWAY
Commuter trains are already arriving full at Knebworth and commuter parking is as you know a increasing problem. Now the frequency of trains may be downgraded and you are proposing a massive new residential development in Baldock, further up the line. Also there are proposals for more development in surrounding villages where the commuters use Knebworth station and park in the surrounding streets. Is it intended that the whole village will eventually be double yellow banded?

Clearly your proposals are likely to make these problems unacceptably worse.

DRAINAGE
Your draft finally acknowledges these issues, but no large scale development of the nature you propose can take place before they are actually dealt with. This presumably includes the major undertaking of a new sewage link to Rye Meads, about 11 miles as the crow flies.

With specific reference to KB2 I presume in the absence of any comment to the contrary that it is intended to leave the developer to resolve the flooding problems. As you know there were severe floods in 1989 and 2014 when a number of houses in Orchard Way and Broom Grove were flooded at considerable cost and anguish to the residents due to extreme weather (which is on the increase due to climate change), failure to maintain existing drains including those serving the motorway and the natural lines of drainage across the Northern half of KB2 and along Gypsy Lane from both ends. After the 1989 flood, I understand that a drainage maintenance scheme was put in place but this was subsequently an unacceptable victim of recession. Any development on this site would clearly need to be carried out by a single developer with a new drainage maintenance scheme put in place and guaranteed in perpetuity. Clearly a ploughed field soaks up water better than a housing estate, so any scheme must be very robust and include the existing carriageway of Gypsy Lane.
IF AS A RESULT OF ANY DEVELOPMENT ON THAT PART OF KB2 NORTH OF GYPSY APPROVED BY NORTH HERTS DC THE FLOODING PROBLEMS IN ORCHARD WAY AND BROOM GROVE GET WORSE IN EXTENT OR FREQUENCY THEN NORTH HERTS DC WILL BE CULPABLE.

OTHER VILLAGE FACILITIES
13.183 states that Knebworth offers a good range of facilities, but these are of course only suitable for the existing population.

13.200 The proposed new surgery and library building offers one extra consulting room necessary for the current population and a downgraded library to volunteer operation with insufficient parking. Both will be totally inadequate for even a small increase in population and therefore a waste of money.

There is a provision for a new primary school in KB2, although no suggestion precisely where or how it would be accessed. I suspect this has not yet even been considered. A similar provision was made in 1976 when the Orchard Way estate was built. It never happened and the site became Bellamy Close many years later. Will this promise go the same way?

13.192 The council should also consider that the existing village school (like all others) is a cause of traffic congestion twice a day and any new school would create a similar problem.

No consideration has been given to employment for the new residents which strengthens the view tat most, if not all, would be commuters.

KB3 I presume the designation of this site for housing only is an error. The frontage to the High St at ground floor level should of course be commercial with residential above and behind.

CONCLUSION
I consider that as far as it concerns Knebworth this is not a properly considered Draft District plan. Apart from the capacity of Rye Meads none of the potential problems of the proposals have been given full consideration, nor do the Council appear to have carried out the necessary liaison with other responsible bodies, para 13.197 being an example.
Its North Herts District Plan so liaison responsibility is theirs.
It appears that the North Herts thought process has been:-
Can we put any more houses round Knebworth?
Yes, there are a couple of farmers who want to sell their land.
Its Green Belt.
Oh never mind.
Full stop.
This is certainly true in the case of KB2 which has been touted in several previous consultation documents with North Herts making it clear at that time that it was the landowner's proposal not theirs.

In view of all the above comments I strongly feel that the Inspector should reject all the proposed allocation for housing in sites KB1, KB2 and KB4. If he or she is minded to let a small part of it through it should not be in the Northern half of KB2 because of the drainage issues.

I wish to make representations regarding the above plan to be placed before the Inspector. I am not using your form as its layout does not suit the comments I wish to make.

I wish to object formally to proposals KB1, KB2 and KB4.

GREEN BELT
The existing Green Belt around Knebworth was established to prevent development and uncontrolled urban expansion. Government policy requires that all development in the Green Belt should be rejected unless there are specific overriding requirements for that development. No such requirements have been put forward leading to the obvious assumption that they exist.
Policies KB1 and KB2 propose the creation of areas of defendable Green Belt to the North of KB1 and the South of KB2. It is the existing Green Belt that must be defended. If that does not happen, clearly North Herts cannot be trusted to protect any Green Belt which is necessary to maintain the identity of the village, prevent coalescence with adjoining settlements and protect high quality agricultural land.

Other Objections should not be necessary but in view of North Herts apparent intention to ignore the Government's Green Belt requirements they clearly are.

TRAFFIC
Paragraphs 13.195 and 13.196 set out the traffic problems as existing. Paragraph 13.197 ducks responsibility for dealing with them. At peak periods, and that is not just the rush hour, the centre of the village is completely gridlocked. In the morning rush hour the B197 is often blocked as far as J6 of the A1(M), and in the afternoon rush hour as far as Tesco at the Roebuck.

The two railway bridges at Station Road and Gun Road are both accidents waiting to happen. Both are low and narrow with narrow pavements on one side only. The Western approaches to both are from the Northwest where drivers are often blinded by the morning sun.

The above are existing problems which would be greatly exacerbated by increasing the population by 30% as you propose especially if any new homes are occupied by a high percentage of commuters. This is especially true of the bridge issues in relation to sites KB1 and KB2 with a total of 384 additional dwellings proposed where most owners would probably be two car families or worse. The end result is likely to be total gridlock and not just when motorway traffic is diverted through the village.

RAILWAY
Commuter trains are already arriving full at Knebworth and commuter parking is as you know a increasing problem. Now the frequency of trains may be downgraded and you are proposing a massive new residential development in Baldock, further up the line. Also there are proposals for more development in surrounding villages where the commuters use Knebworth station and park in the surrounding streets. Is it intended that the whole village will eventually be double yellow banded?

Clearly your proposals are likely to make these problems unacceptably worse.

DRAINAGE
Your draft finally acknowledges these issues, but no large scale development of the nature you propose can take place before they are actually dealt with. This presumably includes the major undertaking of a new sewage link to Rye Meads, about 11 miles as the crow flies.

With specific reference to KB2 I presume in the absence of any comment to the contrary that it is intended to leave the developer to resolve the flooding problems. As you know there were severe floods in 1989 and 2014 when a number of houses in Orchard Way and Broom Grove were flooded at considerable cost and anguish to the residents due to extreme weather (which is on the increase due to climate change), failure to maintain existing drains including those serving the motorway and the natural lines of drainage across the Northern half of KB2 and along Gypsy Lane from both ends. After the 1989 flood, I understand that a drainage maintenance scheme was put in place but this was subsequently an unacceptable victim of recession. Any development on this site would clearly need to be carried out by a single developer with a new drainage maintenance scheme put in place and guaranteed in perpetuity. Clearly a ploughed field soaks up water better than a housing estate, so any scheme must be very robust and include the existing carriageway of Gypsy Lane.
IF AS A RESULT OF ANY DEVELOPMENT ON THAT PART OF KB2 NORTH OF GYPSY APPROVED BY NORTH HERTS DC THE FLOODING PROBLEMS IN ORCHARD WAY AND BROOM GROVE GET WORSE IN EXTENT OR FREQUENCY THEN NORTH HERTS DC WILL BE CULPABLE.

OTHER VILLAGE FACILITIES
13.183 states that Knebworth offers a good range of facilities, but these are of course only suitable for the existing population.

13.200 The proposed new surgery and library building offers one extra consulting room necessary for the current population and a downgraded library to volunteer operation with insufficient parking. Both will be totally inadequate for even a small increase in population and therefore a waste of money.

There is a provision for a new primary school in KB2, although no suggestion precisely where or how it would be accessed. I suspect this has not yet even been considered. A similar provision was made in 1976 when the Orchard Way estate was built. It never happened and the site became Bellamy Close many years later. Will this promise go the same way?

13.192 The council should also consider that the existing village school (like all others) is a cause of traffic congestion twice a day and any new school would create a similar problem.

No consideration has been given to employment for the new residents which strengthens the view tat most, if not all, would be commuters.

KB3 I presume the designation of this site for housing only is an error. The frontage to the High St at ground floor level should of course be commercial with residential above and behind.

CONCLUSION
I consider that as far as it concerns Knebworth this is not a properly considered Draft District plan. Apart from the capacity of Rye Meads none of the potential problems of the proposals have been given full consideration, nor do the Council appear to have carried out the necessary liaison with other responsible bodies, para 13.197 being an example.
Its North Herts District Plan so liaison responsibility is theirs.
It appears that the North Herts thought process has been:-
Can we put any more houses round Knebworth?
Yes, there are a couple of farmers who want to sell their land.
Its Green Belt.
Oh never mind.
Full stop.
This is certainly true in the case of KB2 which has been touted in several previous consultation documents with North Herts making it clear at that time that it was the landowner's proposal not theirs.

In view of all the above comments I strongly feel that the Inspector should reject all the proposed allocation for housing in sites KB1, KB2 and KB4. If he or she is minded to let a small part of it through it should not be in the Northern half of KB2 because of the drainage issues.

I wish to make representations regarding the above plan to be placed before the Inspector. I am not using your form as its layout does not suit the comments I wish to make.

I wish to object formally to proposals KB1, KB2 and KB4.

GREEN BELT
The existing Green Belt around Knebworth was established to prevent development and uncontrolled urban expansion. Government policy requires that all development in the Green Belt should be rejected unless there are specific overriding requirements for that development. No such requirements have been put forward leading to the obvious assumption that they exist.
Policies KB1 and KB2 propose the creation of areas of defendable Green Belt to the North of KB1 and the South of KB2. It is the existing Green Belt that must be defended. If that does not happen, clearly North Herts cannot be trusted to protect any Green Belt which is necessary to maintain the identity of the village, prevent coalescence with adjoining settlements and protect high quality agricultural land.

Other Objections should not be necessary but in view of North Herts apparent intention to ignore the Government's Green Belt requirements they clearly are.

TRAFFIC
Paragraphs 13.195 and 13.196 set out the traffic problems as existing. Paragraph 13.197 ducks responsibility for dealing with them. At peak periods, and that is not just the rush hour, the centre of the village is completely gridlocked. In the morning rush hour the B197 is often blocked as far as J6 of the A1(M), and in the afternoon rush hour as far as Tesco at the Roebuck.

The two railway bridges at Station Road and Gun Road are both accidents waiting to happen. Both are low and narrow with narrow pavements on one side only. The Western approaches to both are from the Northwest where drivers are often blinded by the morning sun.

The above are existing problems which would be greatly exacerbated by increasing the population by 30% as you propose especially if any new homes are occupied by a high percentage of commuters. This is especially true of the bridge issues in relation to sites KB1 and KB2 with a total of 384 additional dwellings proposed where most owners would probably be two car families or worse. The end result is likely to be total gridlock and not just when motorway traffic is diverted through the village.

RAILWAY
Commuter trains are already arriving full at Knebworth and commuter parking is as you know a increasing problem. Now the frequency of trains may be downgraded and you are proposing a massive new residential development in Baldock, further up the line. Also there are proposals for more development in surrounding villages where the commuters use Knebworth station and park in the surrounding streets. Is it intended that the whole village will eventually be double yellow banded?

Clearly your proposals are likely to make these problems unacceptably worse.

DRAINAGE
Your draft finally acknowledges these issues, but no large scale development of the nature you propose can take place before they are actually dealt with. This presumably includes the major undertaking of a new sewage link to Rye Meads, about 11 miles as the crow flies.

With specific reference to KB2 I presume in the absence of any comment to the contrary that it is intended to leave the developer to resolve the flooding problems. As you know there were severe floods in 1989 and 2014 when a number of houses in Orchard Way and Broom Grove were flooded at considerable cost and anguish to the residents due to extreme weather (which is on the increase due to climate change), failure to maintain existing drains including those serving the motorway and the natural lines of drainage across the Northern half of KB2 and along Gypsy Lane from both ends. After the 1989 flood, I understand that a drainage maintenance scheme was put in place but this was subsequently an unacceptable victim of recession. Any development on this site would clearly need to be carried out by a single developer with a new drainage maintenance scheme put in place and guaranteed in perpetuity. Clearly a ploughed field soaks up water better than a housing estate, so any scheme must be very robust and include the existing carriageway of Gypsy Lane.
IF AS A RESULT OF ANY DEVELOPMENT ON THAT PART OF KB2 NORTH OF GYPSY APPROVED BY NORTH HERTS DC THE FLOODING PROBLEMS IN ORCHARD WAY AND BROOM GROVE GET WORSE IN EXTENT OR FREQUENCY THEN NORTH HERTS DC WILL BE CULPABLE.

OTHER VILLAGE FACILITIES
13.183 states that Knebworth offers a good range of facilities, but these are of course only suitable for the existing population.

13.200 The proposed new surgery and library building offers one extra consulting room necessary for the current population and a downgraded library to volunteer operation with insufficient parking. Both will be totally inadequate for even a small increase in population and therefore a waste of money.

There is a provision for a new primary school in KB2, although no suggestion precisely where or how it would be accessed. I suspect this has not yet even been considered. A similar provision was made in 1976 when the Orchard Way estate was built. It never happened and the site became Bellamy Close many years later. Will this promise go the same way?

13.192 The council should also consider that the existing village school (like all others) is a cause of traffic congestion twice a day and any new school would create a similar problem.

No consideration has been given to employment for the new residents which strengthens the view tat most, if not all, would be commuters.

KB3 I presume the designation of this site for housing only is an error. The frontage to the High St at ground floor level should of course be commercial with residential above and behind.

CONCLUSION
I consider that as far as it concerns Knebworth this is not a properly considered Draft District plan. Apart from the capacity of Rye Meads none of the potential problems of the proposals have been given full consideration, nor do the Council appear to have carried out the necessary liaison with other responsible bodies, para 13.197 being an example.
Its North Herts District Plan so liaison responsibility is theirs.
It appears that the North Herts thought process has been:-
Can we put any more houses round Knebworth?
Yes, there are a couple of farmers who want to sell their land.
Its Green Belt.
Oh never mind.
Full stop.
This is certainly true in the case of KB2 which has been touted in several previous consultation documents with North Herts making it clear at that time that it was the landowner's proposal not theirs.

In view of all the above comments I strongly feel that the Inspector should reject all the proposed allocation for housing in sites KB1, KB2 and KB4. If he or she is minded to let a small part of it through it should not be in the Northern half of KB2 because of the drainage issues.