Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Object

Representation ID: 5699

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Fiona Hill

Number of people: 7

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object RY4:
- significant development along the A505 by pass between the A1198 and A10 roundabouts.
- access for construction vehicles is from the A505 and access for occupants of the dwellings is from Burns Road
- in a previous planning application it was agreed that no further development should occur without another access road. Therefore, we do not believe that any development should take place on RY4 without another access road.

Object

Representation ID: 5700

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Fiona Hill

Number of people: 7

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object RY7:
- not sustainable without a full transport infrastructure review.

Object

Representation ID: 5701

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Fiona Hill

Number of people: 7

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object RY8:
- full transport review is required - mix of businesses in Lumen Road, accessed through a very congested Mill Road (single carriageway due to parking). The County Council Highways Locality Budget has funded parking restrictions in this area, due to safety issues in the road.
- Traffic Management Review is urgently required in the areas of Lumen Road and Mill Road

Object

Representation ID: 5702

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Fiona Hill

Number of people: 7

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object RY10:
-to site development with the boundaries as shown.
-concerns over traffic flows-only one access proposed off Newmarket Road.
-Newmarket Road/A505 junction is dangerous.Currently no access from A505 into Royston at this junction from westward direction and therefore all traffic to site RY10, from this direction,would have to come through the town and cause congestion.
-RY2(now has outline planning permission) highlighted,in its required safety audit,pressures on the existing bypass and the requirement for highway improvements to accommodate development.This application was not approved with access off Newmarket Road and the applicant/developer was advised that access must be off the A505.

Object

Representation ID: 6237

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Fiona Hill

Number of people: 7

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object GA1:
- unsustainable site for development- coalescence with Stevenage urbanisation.
- contravenes NPPF 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment).
- AECOM Local Plan model testing job number 60271338, technical note 7 highlights the issues, but is not site specific.
- Stevenage development and North Hertfordshire, without improved joined up infrastructure, will cause further significant problems on and around the A1M corridor.

Object

Representation ID: 6238

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Fiona Hill

Number of people: 7

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object GA2:
- unsustainable site for development- coalescence with Stevenage urbanisation.
- contravenes NPPF 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment).
- AECOM Local Plan model testing job number 60271338, technical note 7 highlights the issues, but is not site specific.
- Stevenage development and North Hertfordshire, without improved joined up infrastructure, will cause further significant problems on and around the A1M corridor.

Object

Representation ID: 6239

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Fiona Hill

Number of people: 7

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object CGB5:
- due to the high allocation of housing already within this area, classification and importance should be given to leisure, retail or commercial development in this region.
- shortage of land available for leisure (such as land availability to move Royston Football Club) and this should be carefully considered when allocating areas of land. NPPF 8 (Promoting Healthy Communities) particularly encourages this and Policy CGB5 endorses this

Object

Representation ID: 6248

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Fiona Hill

Number of people: 7

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object SP6:
-cumulative impact north of Baldock, East of Luton, Graveley, Great Ashby, Knebworth and Royston and surrounding villages(particularly over development in Barkway)together with Codicote,Hitchin,Letchworth and Stevenage would put huge pressure on the already heavily congested A1M,A505 and other routes,where there appear to be no significant plans for improvement,either to roads or cycle networks.
-AECOM model testing highlights potential problems,not site specific and does not cover whole district.
-Highways Authority(Hertfordshire County Council)has developed a new county-wide transport model`COMET'to identify transport mitigation schemes in Royston area-looks at road network in isolation.
-Transport infrastructure should be considered holistically,not just on individual sites.

Object

Representation ID: 6249

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Fiona Hill

Number of people: 7

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object SP5:
- disappointed by the number of dwellings being imposed on the Council, resulting in it having to consider sites in the Green Belt (also potentially rural area beyond the Green Belt) and good agricultural land beyond the Green Belt, since there are very few further sustainable Brownfield sites available.

Object

Representation ID: 6250

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Fiona Hill

Number of people: 7

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object SP8:
-aware idea of a Garden City investigated and that discussions with neighbouring Councils not been positive.
-request that this process continues and sites reviewed so that this remains a viable option in the future.
-should not be at the expense of "protected land" or cause cohesion between towns and villages
-only sites of over 1,000 homes have a "Masterplan",some do not have any infrastructure plan
-should be "Masterplans" or full "Infrastructure Reviews" on every site and also take into account impact on surrounding area-cumulative impact(congestion, highways,education,health,sewerage,drainage and water supply)
-assurance needed all necessary services(including GP's,dentists,school places,transport infrastructure,sewerage,etc.)in place.