Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

We object strongly to the proposed housing expansion in Knebworth in the above plan for several reasons :

1. No provision is made to extend the present infrastructure and local services in Knebworth in respect of :
a) traffic flows in the main street where congestion is already a major daily problem;
b) car parking spaces, particularly for commuters - many of the village's streets are already fully used for parking and extends as far as Gipsy Lane on the western edge;
c) pressure on the rail bridges which are narrow with blind bends and very limited
pedestrian access, creating potential safety hazards. In that nearly all of the new housing would be on the west side of Knebworth, use of these bridges for access to village services and the B197 through-route would increase dramatically;
d) road access to/from the new housing areas is via narrow, twisty lanes.
e) demands on the village GP surgery which is already under pressure and with limited parking. The proposed re-location to the current Library site may help a little but at the presumed loss of that facility.

2. Loss of Green Belt land and the consequential harm to the environment and reduction in productive farmland. The plan makes no provision to create wildlife friendly 'corridors'.

3. The problem of increased run-off arising from the huge increase in impermeable surface area, thus putting greater demands on local drainage as well as sewerage.

4. Lack of consideration for the quality of life both for existing and future residents with regards noise and air pollution, demands on local shops and services, and the siting of a proposed new school close to the A1(M). These issues are likely to be exacerbated by the reduction in some rail services with the new residents having to travel for work as the plan does not make provision for increased employment opportunities.

The proposal to increase the size of Knebworth by 31% by building on most of the 'available' non-urban parts of the village without regards for the infrastructure, services, the environment, and quality of life of the community is simplistic and unsustainable. The plan should therefore be rejected and if necessary re-submitted in a more viable form.