Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Search representations

Results for Ms Charlotte Cosson search

New search New search

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Knebworth

Representation ID: 1016

Received: 27/11/2016

Respondent: Ms Charlotte Cosson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Object to Knebworth (general): No overall strategy, lack of consultation, prior consultation responses not addressed, traffic, specifically B197 and railway bridges, no increase in services/ employments, ill-advised to build school next to a motorway given air and sound pollution, drainage issues, Green Belt, negative impact on Knebworth's identity as a village, impact on habitat and species.

Full text:

Overall strategy:
The overall strategy is not clear. In fact, there is not an overall strategy and as such means that the plan is not effective. The fact that there is no strategy is apparent in the lack of connections between housing, cumulative development and infrastructure needed to support growth sustainably.
Amount of housing:
The amount of new housing (663 dwellings) would increase the village size by 31%. This is an increase of approximately 200 homes in this Plan to 2 years ago. None of the issues highlighted then have been addressed, so how can the village now support and additional 200 homes to 2 years ago? Please note Knebworth is a village, even though it is referred to as a town in the Plan.
Plan for over 500 homes should have a specific plan with developer obligations. Because of the separate sites, this obligation has been overlooked at bets, or deliberately manipulated at worse (by calling each site separate in its own right, rather than all part of the Knebworth site). There is no provision for jobs creation in the Plan as a whole and therefore no consideration for the local economy.
Planning has been granted for the Odyssey site to the north of Knebworth for approx. 70-100 homes. This hasn't been taken into account when determining amount of housing for Knebworth. These houses are being termed 'windfall gains'. A clear strategy should take these into account.
Furthermore, Stevenage West land has already been reserved for 3,100 homes. This would be better able to provide facilities and services.
There is no joined up thinking with adjacent parishes. Plans for Woolmer Green of 150 homes (to the north of Woolmer Green) have not been taken into account. If all the proposals go ahead then Knebworth and Woolmer Green will merge and Stevenage and Knebworth would be practically joined up. The town and villages will all merge into one.
The site KB4 has not previously undergone any consultation. This is against policy and verging on illegal.
Chas Lowe site: Again, as there is no proposal for any commercial use it is evidence of a lack of strategy for Knebworth. The village centre will be changed and this will have an impact. The facilities of Knebworth are designated as a village centre in the retail hierarchy under policy SP4. Therefore, any development of the village centre needs to take this into account. At a bare minimum, some mixed use should be proposed.
Green Belt:
Green Belt land makes a significant contribution to protecting spaces between towns and maintaining the separate identity of Knebworth as a village. Development of sites KB1 and KB2 will remove the Green Belt buffer between the village and the A1. There will be a loss of countryside and the open landscape setting.
Drainage issues:
Drainage issues have been raised time and time again. There will be a major capacity issue at Rye Meads Sewage Treatment Works and this has not been addressed. Surface water is already a problem; this will be exacerbated with increased population and households.

Transport:
It was raised in the previous consultation in 2014 that the existence of the railway line poses huge challenges regarding transport / traffic through the village. These challenges have not been addressed in this plan; in fact, the Plan says (13.195) that there are no mitigation requirements regarding transport. In fact, the Highways Agency has raised this issue previously. The problem with the bridges has been ignored. The two railway bridges at either end of the village are already dangerous due to the current volume of traffic, narrow roads, corners, and narrow pavements. An increase in volume of traffic and pedestrians will make this increasingly dangerous. There have already been many near misses. These two routes are used extensively by small children going to and from school, in the morning rush hour. An increase of 31% of this scale can only add to the problems.
The high street is also a known pinch point; it current takes over 35 minutes to reach junction 6 of the A1 in rush hour, which is only 2 miles away. Increased traffic will only exacerbate this).
Deard's End Lane is already dangerous, and it can't be widened. It is unsuitable for heavy traffic and increased traffic will make it more dangerous and over crowded.
In the Plan (13.192) it states that much of the traffic in the mornings is caused by secondary school pupils going to school in the car. This is simply not true. Virtually ALL secondary school pupils use the trains (to Hitchin and Hatfield) and the school provided buses (to Stevenage, Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield, Hertford, Ware), and public buses. Therefore, the idea that possible secondary school provision could ease the traffic volume is simply inaccurate.
Regarding site KB4, there is an obvious lack of capacity on Watton Road and Swangley's Lane.

Schools:
Primary:
* A second primary school on site KB2 is not well considered. This would be adjacent to the A1 and as such noise and air pollution will be significant. Children and teachers cannot learn and teach in this environment. In December 2014 the Environmental Audit Committee issued a report stating that: 'A ban on building schools, hospitals, and care homes near air pollution hotspots must be introduced to help cut thousands of deaths connected to the 'invisible killer' of traffic fumes.'
* A second primary school will change the village feel of Knebworth to more of a town, or urban sprawl. It will increase pressure on the roads under on the railway bridges because more people would be crossing the village each morning, in both directions, with young children. I would be naïve to assume that parents would automatically chose the primary school nearest to them, or on their side of the village
* Finally, regarding a new primary school, it will create a 'divide' in the village. One school will be 'better' than the other, and therefore a social dividend will emerge. This would not be healthy for the community feel of Knebworth.
Secondary:
In the Plan (13.192) it states that much of the traffic in the mornings is caused by secondary school pupils going to school in the car. This is simply not true. Virtually ALL secondary school pupils use the trains (to Hitchin and Hatfield) and the school provided buses (to Stevenage, Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield, Hertford, Ware), and public buses. Therefore, the idea that possible secondary school provision could ease the traffic volume is simply inaccurate.
13.193 mentions an 'all-through' school. It uses the term 'possibly' and 'provides the opportunity to look at alternative approaches' .This is certainly nothing definitive. It does not seem likely that a secondary school would be built; in fact there is not actually a shortage of secondary school places in Stevenage and so there would be no reason to provide a secondary school.

Other facilities (doctor's, library, pharmacy):
The Plan states that the planning permission has already been granted for a new doctor's surgery and library. This is true, but this is to REPLACE the current doctor's surgery and library; this did not take into account additional population. Therefore, the services provided will not meet the requirements of a village increased by 31% (number of homes).

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

KB3 Chas Lowe site, London Road

Representation ID: 1018

Received: 27/11/2016

Respondent: Ms Charlotte Cosson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Object to KB3: No proposal for commercial use, impact on village centre, consistency with Policy SP4

Full text:

Again, as there is no proposal for any commercial use it is evidence of a lack of strategy for Knebworth. The village centre will be changed and this will have an impact. The facilities of Knebworth are designated as a village centre in the retail hierarchy under policy SP4. Therefore, any development of the village centre needs to take this into account. At a bare minimum, some mixed use should be proposed

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

KB4 Land east of Knebworth

Representation ID: 1023

Received: 27/11/2016

Respondent: Ms Charlotte Cosson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Object to KB4: Lack of consultation, traffic, no firm commitment to education, no joined up thinking with other sites - developers have obligation over 500 homes but as the sites have been separated, this obligation has been overlooked (unless this was intentional;?)

Full text:

Lack of capacity on Watton Road and Swangley's Lane for increased volume of traffice. There will be a loss of countryside and the open landscape setting. Knebworth will merge into Stevenage and the village identity will be lost.
The site KB4 has not previously undergone any consultation. This is against policy and verging on illegal.

Secondary schooling:
13.193 mentions an 'all-through' school. It uses the term 'possibly' and 'provides the opportunity to look at alternative approaches' .This is certainly nothing definitive.The developers would have no obligation to built a secondary school. It does not seem likely that a secondary school would be built; in fact there is not actually a shortage of secondary school places in Stevenage and so there would be no reason to provide a secondary school.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

KB1 Land at Deards End

Representation ID: 1027

Received: 27/11/2016

Respondent: Ms Charlotte Cosson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Object to KB1: Transport infrastructure is insufficient, loss of Greenbelt, environmental impact including noise and air pollution being so close to motorway.
Strategy for increased housing is virtually non-existent and therefore the plan is not effective.

Full text:

Green Belt land makes a significant contribution to protecting spaces between towns and maintaining the separate identity of Knebworth as a village. Development of sites KB1 and KB2 will remove the Green Belt buffer between the village and the A1. There will be a loss of countryside and the open landscape setting.
Deard's End Lane is already dangerous, and it can't be widened. It is unsuitable for heavy traffic and increased traffic will make it more dangerous and over crowded.
Effects on conservation area will be negative, due to loss of habitat and wildlife sites. Knebworth woods is an area of special scientific interest.
Pollution from A1 (M).
Strategy does not address village infrastructure/local economy. It is not effective. Increased housing will have impact on congestion in village. Access to village from this site under bridges - already too much traffic, narrow roads on pavements. Will be more dangerous.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

KB2 Land off Gypsy Lane

Representation ID: 1030

Received: 27/11/2016

Respondent: Ms Charlotte Cosson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Object to KB2: Transport/infrastructure problems of more people using railway bridges. Previous consultation comments not addressed, pressure on local services, Primary School next to the motorway not in line with Government Policy, drainage issues with site, loss of Green Belt, pollution from A1 (M)

Full text:

Overall strategy:
The overall strategy is not clear. In fact, there is not an overall strategy and as such means that the plan is not effective. The fact that there is no strategy is apparent in the lack of connections between housing, cumulative development and infrastructure needed to support growth sustainably.
Amount of housing:
The amount of new housing (663 dwellings) would increase the village size by 31%. This is an increase of approximately 200 homes in this Plan to 2 years ago. None of the issues highlighted then have been addressed, so how can the village now support and additional 200 homes to 2 years ago? Please note Knebworth is a village, even though it is referred to as a town in the Plan.
Plan for over 500 homes should have a specific plan with developer obligations. Because of the separate sites, this obligation has been overlooked at bets, or deliberately manipulated at worse (by calling each site separate in its own right, rather than all part of the Knebworth site). There is no provision for jobs creation in the Plan as a whole and therefore no consideration for the local economy.
Planning has been granted for the Odyssey site to the north of Knebworth for approx. 70-100 homes. This hasn't been taken into account when determining amount of housing for Knebworth. These houses are being termed 'windfall gains'. A clear strategy should take these into account.
Furthermore, Stevenage West land has already been reserved for 3,100 homes. This would be better able to provide facilities and services.
There is no joined up thinking with adjacent parishes. Plans for Woolmer Green of 150 homes (to the north of Woolmer Green) have not been taken into account. If all the proposals go ahead then Knebworth and Woolmer Green will merge and Stevenage and Knebworth would be practically joined up. The town and villages will all merge into one.

Green Belt:
Green Belt land makes a significant contribution to protecting spaces between towns and maintaining the separate identity of Knebworth as a village. Development of sites KB1 and KB2 will remove the Green Belt buffer between the village and the A1. There will be a loss of countryside and the open landscape setting.
Drainage issues:
Drainage issues have been raised time and time again. There will be a major capacity issue at Rye Meads Sewage Treatment Works and this has not been addressed. Surface water is already a problem; this will be exacerbated with increased population and households.

Transport:
It was raised in the previous consultation in 2014 that the existence of the railway line poses huge challenges regarding transport/traffic through the village. These challenges have not been addressed in this plan; in fact, the Plan says (13.195) that there are no mitigation requirements regarding transport. In fact, the Highways Agency has raised this issue previously. The problem with the bridges has been ignored. The two railway bridges at either end of the village are already dangerous due to the current volume of traffic, narrow roads, corners, and narrow pavements. An increase in volume of traffic and pedestrians will make this increasingly dangerous. There have already been many near misses. These two routes are used extensively by small children going to and from school, in the morning rush hour. An increase of 31% of this scale can only add to the problems.
The high street is also a known pinch point; it current takes over 35 minutes to reach junction 6 of the A1 in rush hour, which is only 2 miles away. Increased traffic will only exacerbate this).

In the Plan (13.192) it states that much of the traffic in the mornings is caused by secondary school pupils going to school in the car. This is simply not true. Virtually ALL secondary school pupils use the trains (to Hitchin and Hatfield) and the school provided buses (to Stevenage, Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield, Hertford, Ware), and public buses. Therefore, the idea that possible secondary school provision could ease the traffic volume is simply inaccurate.

Schools:
Primary:
* A second primary school on site KB2 is not well considered. This would be adjacent to the A1 and as such noise and air pollution will be significant. Children and teachers cannot learn and teach in this environment. In December 2014 the Environmental Audit Committee issued a report stating that: 'A ban on building schools, hospitals, and care homes near air pollution hotspots must be introduced to help cut thousands of deaths connected to the 'invisible killer' of traffic fumes.'
* A second primary school will change the village feel of Knebworth to more of a town, or urban sprawl. It will increase pressure on the roads under on the railway bridges because more people would be crossing the village each morning, in both directions, with young children. I would be naïve to assume that parents would automatically chose the primary school nearest to them, or on their side of the village
* Finally, regarding a new primary school, it will create a 'divide' in the village. One school will be 'better' than the other, and therefore a social dividend will emerge. This would not be healthy for the community feel of Knebworth.

Other facilities (doctor's, library, pharmacy):
The Plan states that the planning permission has already been granted for a new doctor's surgery and library. This is true, but this is to REPLACE the current doctor's surgery and library; this did not take into account additional population. Therefore, the services provided will not meet the requirements of a village increased by 31% (number of homes), of which site KB2 has a significant proportion.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Knebworth

Representation ID: 1118

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Ms Charlotte Cosson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Objection to the allocations at Knebworth on the grounds of:
- a strategic approach and policy is required
- need to determine impact of the allocations together: housing, schooling, transport, services, infrastructure

Full text:

There is a lack of strategic approach to the proposal for Knebworth. When there is a development of more than 500 houses (Strategic Development Site), NHDC usually draw up a Strategic Policy. This has not been done in Knebworth. Although each of the four separate sites in Knebworth is under 500 houses, in aggregate they total 600+. It appears that NHDC are deliberately trying to avoid following their own procedures. All sites will have an impact on the village together, in terms of transport, services, infrastructure, and thus should be viewed as such, rather than as 4 separate sites.

If you are having trouble using the system, please try our help guide.