Proposed Main Modifications

Modification: MM001 - p.0
Page LP1:0
Policy Paragraph: About Consultation
Inspector's Proposed Modification: Delete
Inspector's Reason/source:
FOR INSERTED: effectiveness;
Consultation has occurred

This follows and is related to my previously sent MM0 Main Modifications submission in which I commented on representations that were completely omitted from the enquiry by NHDC.

This additional item is related to the completely omitted submissions and I wish it to also be brought to the Inspector's notice once again at this point.

It is the fact that the NHDC website portal was extremely unreliable. There were several occasions when people were unable to forward comments as the website was 'out of order'! I was one of its frustrated complainants! I contacted NHDC several times by telephone, about the unsuitable position it was leaving everyone in and they agreed that the site was, at that time inadequate and they were 'in the throws' of it being sorted out. I also complained via e mail, replies from NHDC which I still have.

Therefore, not only have many people's comments been IGNORED, but because of the website difficulties referred to, there were probably actually many more UNSUBMITTED! Not everyone has the luxury of having enough time to keep trying to catch when the site is open!

Whether this was a ploy to deter people or a true situation, only NHDC knows!

Nevertheless ERRATIC WEBSITE plus IGNORED AND THEREFORE UNCONSIDERED written representations provide an UNFAIR AND DETRIMENTAL OUTCOME to this enquiry.

Subject: Modification Objection - Hundreds of Representor's Lost from the Examination Process.
Modification: MM001 - p.0
Page LP 1: 0
Policy/ Paragraph: About this consultation
Inspector's Proposed Modification: Delete
Inspector's Reason/source: For INSERTED: effectiveness; Consultation has occurred

THIS REPRESENTOR'S ARGUMENT AGAINST THIS PROPOSED MODIFICATION:

Our community locates there to be between 99 - 195 people who made their objections/representations at Regulation 19. However the Council failed to publish those same objection statements.

If you find this respondent's name not upon the list of Representors for the Examination, then it is highly likely that this writer is amongst those respondents also wrongly excluded from participation after Regulation 19. This is something you will need to investigate thoroughly for yourself on an individual case by case basis.

I want this representation published along with all the others on the Examination Documents Library.

As a result sum 99-195 participants (residents of East Luton and North Hertfordshire) have been left out of all communications from the Council thereafter.

Furthermore the Inspector also failed to inform these representors of their right to participate at Regulation 22.
The basis for modification MM001 therefore cannot apply, so this Paragraph referred to in MM001 should not be removed.

The reason it should not be removed is because Consultation has not yet occurred for a very large number of representors who did make their objections known to the Council at Regulation 19.

This is unacceptable and we demand action to be taken immediately.

The action must be that this Consultation now be halted whilst detailed investigation is conducted to establish exactly who was left out of the Examination Procedures at Regulation 22, why and who was responsible for excluding them. Then they must be repeated so that everyone is included from the rightful time that they should have been in the first place.

We inform you that this exclusion of so many Consultees is reason enough to declare this Consultation as voidable.

Stakeholders have had their constitutional consultation rights denied them. We declare your Consultation as voidable.

Having been entirely left out of the Examination Consultation and participation process at Regulation 22, they were also denied all opportunity to put in any of their further "Matter Statements" at the start of this Examination. Consequentially they have also been left out of this current Modification Consultation.

We do not accept that a Consultation has occurred therefore. We also do not consent to this Consultation proceeding without all representors' participation in it.

Consultation stills needs to occur for these people, but it hasn't. Yet it must.

Therefore you are wrong to say that "Consultation has occurred". You would be wrong to let it continue to not occur for them.

This shocking event has occurred and leaves a heavy pressing question mark hanging over the already shadowy legitimacy of North Herts District Council's Local Plan and the hidden plans of its architects.
The Consultation cannot continue without all representors who made their views known in writing at Regulation 19. These representors must be afforded their due rights for fair Consultation at all stages beyond Regulation 19, under the Town and Country Planning Act and other Laws.
For this reason it is our urgent demand to the Inspector, and Secretary of State, and our MPs - that this Consultation be immediately suspended; until the exact numbers left out of this Consultation can be clearly identified and established. Also that the person/s responsible for this unacceptable breach be clearly identified. And their motifs for removing such a huge number of representors be brought to the forefront for examination.
We are trying to establish the exact number of representors who were left out of the Consultation process, but the current number is running at, at least 74; with numerous additional people surfacing. But this is your job not ours' to investigate what has gone wrong. And you will need time to do that. So this Consultation must be suspended.

The claim is that after making their representations at Regulation 19 between 99-190 people heard nothing from the Council and their Objections letters remain absent from the Council's website.

All members of the Public and stakeholders must be allowed by Law to participate in every stage of a Public Consultation without discrimination. Any Inspector judging the soundness of a Plan's preparation would know that it is simply not sound preparation by anyone's standards - to leave any, let alone such a huge number of Objectors out!
The respondents to Regulation 19 WHO OBJECTED TO EAST OF LUTON (EL1, EL2, EL3) have incurred the loss of being wrongfully removed from participation to the hearing include, but are not limited to these 74 people at least:-
Respondent

NAMES REMOVED FOR GDPR.

It seems very suspicious that all of the removed Representations were OBJECTIONS.
It also seems very suspicious that all of the removed Representations are against the largest and most controversial Proposed Strategic Site East of Luton.
Apparently the Consultation at Regulation 19 was occurring at the same time that North Herts Planning Managers were claiming there to be technical difficulties with their email and website portals.
However I am sure that they would not use this as any sort of excuse to disguise removal of hundreds of Representors and lose them from the entire Examination process.

Revised National Planning Policy Framework
Dated Feb 2019
(Ref I5BN 978-1-5286-1033-9, CP48 PDF,1.28 MB. 76 pages)

Page 40 Protecting Greenbelt Land
1. The general extent of Green Belts across the country is already established. New Greenbelts should only be established IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

1. Once established Green Belts boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are justified, through the preparation or updating of plans. Strategic policies should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so they can endure beyond the plan period. Where a need for changes to Green Belt boundaries has been established through strategic policies, detailed amendments to those boundaries may be made through non strategic policies, including neighbourhood plans.

1. Before concluding that EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES exist to justify changes to the Green Belt boundaries the strategic plan-making authority should have examined FULLY all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development. This will be assessed through the examination of the plan and will take into account whether the strategy:
a). Makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and under-utilised land.

b). Optimises the density of developments including whether policies promote a significant uplift in minimising density standards in town and city centres, and other locations well served by public transport, and

c). has been informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate some of the identified need for development, as demonstrated through the statement of common ground
Inclusive points 138 - 147.

National Planning Policy Framework (Feb 2019)
Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
P49 15. 180-181

National Planning Policy Framework (Feb 2019)
Space should be consistent with Greenbelts
P27. 8. 101

**USING GREENBELT LAND IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY
MODIFIED PLANS ARE NOT JUSTIFIED

**EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST AGAINST LOSS OF GREENBELT LAND to the additional new homes for NHDC Sites EL1. EL2. EL3

Too many local authorities and developers have been taking a lax view of what EXCEPTIONAL means. They have been
allocating Greenbelt sites for redevelopment. THIS IS THE CASE HERE
REASON: EL1 EL2 EL3 Greenbelt Land is an exceptional need for this area of Luton.
The East of Luton is blighted by Industry and development, road and aircraft noise and POLLUTION from all quarters!

Luton Borough Council, in their wisdom to "bring prosperity to the town", have allocated a horrendous amount of new and redevelopment plans within the East of Luton. Much of this is underway.

This area has contained London Luton Airport for many years.
Passenger figures in 2018 were the busiest ever with 16.6 million passengers.

https://mediahub.london-luton.co.uk
In February 2019 almost 1.2 million passengers passed through the airport, a massive increase on the same month last year
(13.1% increase)

In 2018 LBC announced their plans for an enormous Airport expansion -
The eventual figure is 38 MILLION passengers per annum which is ALMOST DOUBLE the present figures and these present figures are barely liveable with!

This expansion has begun with a loss to the East of Luton of 153 hectares of land which was an extensively used Wildlife Park (Wigmore Valley Park) and playing fields. The land is adjacent to Luton Airport. In its place there will be a Business Park, Industrial. Area and Long Term Car Park.

Another London Luton Airport project, again currently underway, will be a monorail connection in and out of the Airport, which of course affects Wigmore once again.
THE PROPOSALS FOR LONDON LUTON AIRPORT EXPANSION ARE NOW A PROJECT OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE WITH SUBMISSION TO THE GOVERNMENT.

Luton Borough Council's plans affecting EAST OF LUTON are as follows -
New Dual Carriageway and Link Road (Eaton Green)
Plans passed

New Century Park/Industrial
Plans approved

Newlands Park Retail /Shopping
Plans passed March 2019

Power Court - New Football Stadium with Park and Ride (operating to and from the East of Luton)
Plans passed recently, March 2019

Eaton Green and Kimpton Road - Eaton Green Heights - a huge number of new homes being built. Underway at present, on a vast site of where Vauxhall Motors used to operate from.
Plans passed

Wandon Park- a greenspace between Hayling Drive and Selsey Drive LU2, NHDC site EL1 is opposite this area. New Builds planned here by Luton Borough and plans are under public consultation at the moment

East Of Luton has a Golf Club at Tea Green, this has recently (Dec 2018) closed with suggestions of new homes being built on the land

Replacement Football Stadium (as above) will also mean that Luton Borough Council will retain the present site then being at their disposal for home building. This is a very large area of land which will be extremely advantageous towards great numbers of new homes. The present Football Stadium site is not to the East of Luton and does not affect it at the moment, but the new stadium will have effects on East Luton

PLUS - THREAT Of A PLANNED MASS INCINERATOR - NEARBY - between Harpenden and Luton. Accessed from the Lower Luton Road.
50 lorries in per day
50 lorries out per day
Equals 100 Artics - highly toxic movement. May be providing energy for London Luton Airport

Seemingly Luton Borough Council has deemed it necessary to accept NHDC's Unmet Needs offer which will mean loss of valuable GREENBELT LAND for the Wigmore area, East Luton. But, they have been very busy managing to acquire land for a great number of projects! CAN ANYONE TO THE EAST OF LUTON BE TRULY SURE THAT THERE ARE NO BROWNFIELD SITES AVAILABLE INSTEAD! Can we be confident that they have truly exhausted their options? Doubtful indeed!

REF: Luton Local Plan (2011-2031) November 2017

POLLUTION
If any area ever needed GREENSPACE then it is here!

GOV UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
Clean Air Strategy 2019
Published Jan 2019

Defra analysis of 2016 PM2.5 emissions from the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAE) 2018,
http://naei.beis.gov.uk

Defra, Emissions of air pollutants in the UK, 1970-2016 (2018)
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/emissions-of-air-pollutants

While NHDC, without conscience continues to decimate areas, destroy our Greenbelt and pollute our environment, our Government continues to set out new plans to improve air quality.
The Government has stated that pollution was one of the biggest threats to public health in the UK, behind Cancer, Obesity and Heart disease. NHS costs need to be reduced! Science has been building up on the dangers of AIR POLLUTION. It has been reported that air pollution can increase risks of miscarriages, studies have linked air pollution with dementia, heart conditions, asthma, and heart defects. MICHAEL GOVE said, "The evidence is clear. While air quality has improved in recent years, air pollution continues to shorten lives, harm our children and reduce quality of life". GOVE also said that traffic pollution was only part of the problem, "While air pollution may conjure images of traffic jams and exhaust fumes, transport is only part of the story".

UNACCEPTABLE POLLUTION exists at present to the East of Luton. Residents, speak of sooty black deposits, "thickness" of the air and actual tasting of the pollution. London Luton Airport without doubt has a lot to answer for regarding their complaints. The aforementioned developments will result in a HIGHER LEVEL yet again!
Increased pollution from any extra developments will further endorse the fact that EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST IN THIS AREA

The impact of this increased pollution on residents health in the Wigmore area (an area of which NHDC has alotted sites EL1 EL2 EL3 for building on), must be seriously considered and everything sensible and feasible should be done to alleviate the situation. ALL developments aforementioned are 2 MILES or less from Wigmore! At the moment all residents of Wigmore are subjected to daily pollution from London Luton Airport. Any increase in pollution is just unacceptable! WE NEED LOWER POLLUTION NOT HIGHER!

Our Children's Health should not be put at risk in such a dangerous, foolish and thoughtless way. Wigmore School is to take part in a Government three year Project testing POLLUTION effects on children. Selected because of area! These young people deserve a future. Living in an Industrial town, lower levels of income, mean they are already disadvantaged. It is a fact that affluent areas are generally more healthy overall.

THE NEED FOR HEALTHY GREENBELT LAND HAS NEVER BEEN HIGHER IN THIS AREA OF LUTON. TAKING IT AWAY SHOULD NOT BE AN OPTION HERE.

**PLANS NOT JUSTIFIED AND NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY

SITES EL1 EL2 EL3 HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED BY NHDC AFTER MODIFICATIONS AS SUITABLE FOR 2100 NEW HOMES BUT SHOULD REMAIN AS GREENBELT LAND UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES. ADDITIONAL PLANTING TO THIS EXISTING GREENBELT AREA WOULD BE A FAR MORE ACCEPTABLE AND HEALTHY OPTION.
Buyers of any homes on these sites will be subjected to the same HIGH POLLUTION and misery on a daily basis as present residents, bringing them and their families an unhealthy future. It should not be a viable option giving them unknowing choice. THAT IS WITHOUT mentioning the additional pollution impact on the area that the building of another 2100 new homes and infrastructure will bring.