Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

I have an objection to the development in the area identified as for Cockernhoe and East of Luton based on the following points and observations;

* Assuming a number of the new residents would either work in Luton or need to use the M1 to commute there would be increased congestion on the local access roads (esp. Crawley Green Road and Eaton Green Road), particularly at peak times when the roads are already heavily utilised. It is stated that access into Luton will be improved in conjunction with Luton Borough Council but the scope for improving main routes into and out of Luton from the new housing area are limited as they pass through areas that are already fully developed and built up to the road corridors.
* Traffic to and from junction 10/10a on the M1 at peak times is also currently subject to delays and queuing and this would be exacerbated by additional traffic from the development. Ironically, the work to 'improve' junction 10a has only increased the problem as traffic is able to move more rapidly from the M1 along the A505 to the area where it intersects Crawley Green Road and Eaton Green Road. The airport operator is already under the misapprehension that the junction 10a redesign will improve access to the airport, even though it still reduces to one lane on the new approach to the airport. This fact, and the proposed increase in airport traffic from 12m to 18m passengers per annum, can only result in an increase in congestion to which the proposed housing will only add
* The new development would have to rely upon existing secondary education facilities in the east of Luton, all of which are either at capacity or planned to take the forecast increased demand for secondary education from within the existing Luton area. Any traffic associated with taking pupils to and from these schools would add to the congestion on the local road network, as described above. The same argument can be applied to other facilities such as sports and leisure facilities, doctors'/dentists' surgeries and in particular the Luton and Dunstable hospital that would start receiving patients that might otherwise have gone to hospitals in Stevenage and Hatfield
* The new development has only local centre sized shopping facilities planned. The nearest store able to serve the new residents with a wide range of products is Asda on Wigmore Lane. This is currently operating at capacity, both in terms of store size and car parking and is the cause of some road congestion at busy times. There is no potential for this store to increase in size or for there to be improvements to its infrastructure to support its use by additional customers. Should a new 'superstore' be offered in the new development it would be so close to the existing Wigmore lane local centre that it would impact the Wigmore lane centre's trade and potentially draw customers from further west within Luton and east from Hertfordshire, increasing traffic through the Wigmore area and on the rural roads and lanes to the east of the new development area.
* It is stated that the proposal is to meet Luton's future needs. Why is NHDC concerning itself with Luton's future housing needs when there is existing brownfield land and potential greenfield development land within Luton Borough Council's existing boundaries? Will the affordable housing in the development be made available exclusively to meet Luton's requirements? If not and NHDC still 'reserves' an amount of the allocation to meets its need the residents could have to travel to centres of employment such as Hitchin and Stevenage further increasing traffic attempting to get on the A505 or travelling through the narrow country lanes directly to the east. I understand that traffic modelling of this effect assumes the existence of roads that have yet to be constructed.
* It is not clear to which authority Council Tax would be due. If not to Luton, how would the additional costs of the development for such things as waste collection, road maintenance, fire service cover, etc be covered?
* The proposal is in Green Belt land and I have seen reference in the development documentation of it refers to its 'efficient use'. I believe the context of this efficiency is in the low density of development and the visual amenity built into the layout. Another interpretation of efficiency is that the use of Green Belt land should be minimised and the density of development increased to reduce the Green Belt area required. In this context the proposed development is highly inefficient.