Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Search representations
Results for Mrs Susan Brady search
New searchObject
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Policy SP19: Sites EL1, EL2 and EL3 - East of Luton
Representation ID: 3483
Received: 27/11/2016
Respondent: Mrs Susan Brady
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP19 (EL1, EL2 & EL3): Loss of Green Belt, no very special circumstances, impact on existing villages, out of proportion, traffic, loss of recreational opportunities, unsustainable, biodiversity.
I strongly object to the above-mentioned plan and my reasons are detailed below:
* The 'New Neighbourhood Planning Infrastructure Bill 2016' states that it supports the Government's ambition to deliver one million new homes, whilst protecting those areas that are valued most, including the Green Belt. This area is Green Belt and the application does not meet the 'Very Special Circumstances' required to build on it, as stated in paragraphs 80 and 83 of the National Planning Framework and also the House of Commons briefing note on Green Belt. The Green Belt boundaries should not be amended in response to individual planning applications (The National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 83).
* There are currently 205 dwellings in Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green and Tea Green. An additional 2,100 dwellings will be an increase of 1,124%. This development is completely out of proportion to all other developments in the district - these villages and communities will cease to exist.
* Of these additional dwellings, 150 are for North Herts and the remaining 1,950 are to meet Luton's supposed unmet needs, a number which has not been qualified when challenged.
* There is no planned improvements to the already stretched road infrastructure:
* Crawley Green Road and Eaton Green Road are backing up over 750 metres at their junctions with Airport Way during the rush hour, without the addition of a further 5,000 cars+. The roads through the airport are often gridlocked and with the growth of passengers at Luton Airport, currently circa 12.75 million with a projected increase year on year to 22 million by 2030, this is set to worsen. Stockingstone and the A505 will equally suffer.
* The traffic survey undertaken in 2015 was not carried out to industry standards i.e. for a month. Also, the results of this survey showed a negligible or nil effect on local congestion, when the results and thus the underpinning of the proposal were based on a road that does not exist, has not been proposed and as has been stated by the council "there is no funding to develop".
* In the shorter term, the projected airport development/business park/light industry will attract a further 7,000 employees, according to Luton Borough Council. The roads cannot cope with this increase in vehicles.
* The two country lanes that lead out of the sites in to North Herts have insufficient passing places and are already being used as 'dangerous rat-runs'. This will increase as residents seek access to the M1 via Lilley Bottom and Lilley and seek to access Hitchin/Stevenage through Offley.
* The paths and woodlands are used by villagers and people from neighbouring Luton, as a leisure area for walking, cycling and running. These will be destroyed despite national efforts to encourage people to keep fit.
* In the presentation of the local plan, Councillor Levitt stated that "the development plays a key role in supporting the growth of our economy planning for the right type and numbers of home, in the right place to create sustainable communities". How can a development only linking North Herts by two single track lanes be considered as a sustainable community?
* There is sufficient 'brown field' land in Luton to accommodate 'Luton's Unmet Need' at the same housing density as this proposed development.
* Teeming wildlife, owls, bats, deer etc. will be displaced. Wildlife corridors are no substitute!!
I hope that my objections will be taken seriously and duly noted by the relevant personnel. I look forward to receiving confirmation of this in due course.
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Policy SP8: Housing
Representation ID: 5631
Received: 27/11/2016
Respondent: Mrs Susan Brady
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP8: Luton's unmet needs not qualified, sufficient brownfield land in Luton
I strongly object to the above-mentioned plan and my reasons are detailed below:
* The 'New Neighbourhood Planning Infrastructure Bill 2016' states that it supports the Government's ambition to deliver one million new homes, whilst protecting those areas that are valued most, including the Green Belt. This area is Green Belt and the application does not meet the 'Very Special Circumstances' required to build on it, as stated in paragraphs 80 and 83 of the National Planning Framework and also the House of Commons briefing note on Green Belt. The Green Belt boundaries should not be amended in response to individual planning applications (The National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 83).
* There are currently 205 dwellings in Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green and Tea Green. An additional 2,100 dwellings will be an increase of 1,124%. This development is completely out of proportion to all other developments in the district - these villages and communities will cease to exist.
* Of these additional dwellings, 150 are for North Herts and the remaining 1,950 are to meet Luton's supposed unmet needs, a number which has not been qualified when challenged.
* There is no planned improvements to the already stretched road infrastructure:
* Crawley Green Road and Eaton Green Road are backing up over 750 metres at their junctions with Airport Way during the rush hour, without the addition of a further 5,000 cars+. The roads through the airport are often gridlocked and with the growth of passengers at Luton Airport, currently circa 12.75 million with a projected increase year on year to 22 million by 2030, this is set to worsen. Stockingstone and the A505 will equally suffer.
* The traffic survey undertaken in 2015 was not carried out to industry standards i.e. for a month. Also, the results of this survey showed a negligible or nil effect on local congestion, when the results and thus the underpinning of the proposal were based on a road that does not exist, has not been proposed and as has been stated by the council "there is no funding to develop".
* In the shorter term, the projected airport development/business park/light industry will attract a further 7,000 employees, according to Luton Borough Council. The roads cannot cope with this increase in vehicles.
* The two country lanes that lead out of the sites in to North Herts have insufficient passing places and are already being used as 'dangerous rat-runs'. This will increase as residents seek access to the M1 via Lilley Bottom and Lilley and seek to access Hitchin/Stevenage through Offley.
* The paths and woodlands are used by villagers and people from neighbouring Luton, as a leisure area for walking, cycling and running. These will be destroyed despite national efforts to encourage people to keep fit.
* In the presentation of the local plan, Councillor Levitt stated that "the development plays a key role in supporting the growth of our economy planning for the right type and numbers of home, in the right place to create sustainable communities". How can a development only linking North Herts by two single track lanes be considered as a sustainable community?
* There is sufficient 'brown field' land in Luton to accommodate 'Luton's Unmet Need' at the same housing density as this proposed development.
* Teeming wildlife, owls, bats, deer etc. will be displaced. Wildlife corridors are no substitute!!
I hope that my objections will be taken seriously and duly noted by the relevant personnel. I look forward to receiving confirmation of this in due course.