Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Search representations

Results for Mrs Jo Bottrill search

New search New search

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Policy SP19: Sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 - East of Luton

Representation ID: 3096

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Jo Bottrill

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3):
- Infrastructure and transportation
- Luton's unmet housing need
- Transport Assessment
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Green Belt
- Not in accordance with the NPPF
- Air quality and noise pollution
- Scale of development
- Village Character
- Healthcare and education services
- Developer contributions
- Strategic Housing Management Assessment
- Available Brownfield Sites

Full text:

Please let me be counted as I wish to change the Local Plan and participate in the Examination as I strongly object to the NHDC Local Plan 2011-2031.
First and foremost, the infrastructure and transportation networks are inadequately addressed in the parts of the plan relating sites East of Luton, to meet Luton's Unmet Housing Need East of Luton. The Transport Assessments were not robust and the data was inadequate and inaccurate; they did not include impacts of all new developments in the vicinity and they were not carried out for long enough. Some studies from Luton Borough Council assumed roads that did not even exist.
Currently, traffic congestion in Wigmore is already close to unacceptable levels; both LBC and NHDC have noted concerns over lack of necessary infrastructure and inadequate road networks due to the already existent congestion.
I also object that there is no justifiable need to declassify Land East of Luton from the Green Belt. There are many viable alternatives, so the Local Plan is not in accordance with the National Framework Planning Policy since it is not "absolutely necessary." I wish to change this plan. I want to participate in the Examination.
Building 2,105 upwards houses will lead to unacceptable problematic congestion consequences for this area, especially in the light of the airport's vast expansion which planned simultaneously for this side of town. This will impact all of Luton; Wigmore, Stopsley, Eaton Green, and even Round Green, Stockingstone Road, and even the over-stretched Luton and Dunstable Hospital!
Air quality and pollution has not been assessed in the residential areas around the airport and there has been no mitigating solutions to the air and noise pollution that will be generated from the extra cars, or the airport expansion in this area.
Wigmore currently consists of about 4,500 houses, so this proposal is an unacceptably disproportionate level of expansion - nearly 50%.

Cockernhoe Village will no longer even exist. It would destroy an entire rural community and displace a village. It would change the character of the area to an unacceptable degree. If you consider that Cockernhoe is 50 houses, the expansion threat is a huge 4,200%, which is unacceptable and totally disproportionate.
Logic would dictate that all other infrastructure must also be matched by an expansion of 50 per cent too - so half of every public service available in Wigmore, ranging from shops and retail outlets, (we have one overstretched supermarket as it is), car parks, secondary and primary schools, petrol stations, policing services, fire services, health services, dental services must all be also expanded to that same degree. Where will the money for all this come from as the developers won't be putting these services in place.
The unmet housing need figure also shows inaccuracies. During Executive Meetings LBC stated the need for a collaboration between neighbouring councils to commission another Strategic Housing Management Assessment to re-examine once more the Unmet Housing Need figure assumptions, due to their estimated nature but far-reaching consequences and drastic impact upon the area. I understand there are more appropriate brown fill sites that can be built upon that would be better suited than stripping away green belt land.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Policy SP8: Housing

Representation ID: 5693

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Mrs Jo Bottrill

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to SP8:
- Luton's unmet housing need
- Sufficient brownfield land
- Loss of Green Belt

Full text:

Please let me be counted as I wish to change the Local Plan and participate in the Examination as I strongly object to the NHDC Local Plan 2011-2031.
First and foremost, the infrastructure and transportation networks are inadequately addressed in the parts of the plan relating sites East of Luton, to meet Luton's Unmet Housing Need East of Luton. The Transport Assessments were not robust and the data was inadequate and inaccurate; they did not include impacts of all new developments in the vicinity and they were not carried out for long enough. Some studies from Luton Borough Council assumed roads that did not even exist.
Currently, traffic congestion in Wigmore is already close to unacceptable levels; both LBC and NHDC have noted concerns over lack of necessary infrastructure and inadequate road networks due to the already existent congestion.
I also object that there is no justifiable need to declassify Land East of Luton from the Green Belt. There are many viable alternatives, so the Local Plan is not in accordance with the National Framework Planning Policy since it is not "absolutely necessary." I wish to change this plan. I want to participate in the Examination.
Building 2,105 upwards houses will lead to unacceptable problematic congestion consequences for this area, especially in the light of the airport's vast expansion which planned simultaneously for this side of town. This will impact all of Luton; Wigmore, Stopsley, Eaton Green, and even Round Green, Stockingstone Road, and even the over-stretched Luton and Dunstable Hospital!
Air quality and pollution has not been assessed in the residential areas around the airport and there has been no mitigating solutions to the air and noise pollution that will be generated from the extra cars, or the airport expansion in this area.
Wigmore currently consists of about 4,500 houses, so this proposal is an unacceptably disproportionate level of expansion - nearly 50%.

Cockernhoe Village will no longer even exist. It would destroy an entire rural community and displace a village. It would change the character of the area to an unacceptable degree. If you consider that Cockernhoe is 50 houses, the expansion threat is a huge 4,200%, which is unacceptable and totally disproportionate.
Logic would dictate that all other infrastructure must also be matched by an expansion of 50 per cent too - so half of every public service available in Wigmore, ranging from shops and retail outlets, (we have one overstretched supermarket as it is), car parks, secondary and primary schools, petrol stations, policing services, fire services, health services, dental services must all be also expanded to that same degree. Where will the money for all this come from as the developers won't be putting these services in place.
The unmet housing need figure also shows inaccuracies. During Executive Meetings LBC stated the need for a collaboration between neighbouring councils to commission another Strategic Housing Management Assessment to re-examine once more the Unmet Housing Need figure assumptions, due to their estimated nature but far-reaching consequences and drastic impact upon the area. I understand there are more appropriate brown fill sites that can be built upon that would be better suited than stripping away green belt land.

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.