Proposed Main Modifications
Search representations
Results for The Breachwood Green Society search
New searchObject
Proposed Main Modifications
MM008 - Page 31 Policy SP1 (c) (iv)
Representation ID: 7035
Received: 28/02/2019
Respondent: The Breachwood Green Society
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
See attached
Policy SP1 - Stated policy is to ensure the vitality of the district's villages and protect the biodiversity of the landscape. This is directly contradicted by the East of Luton Development. This would destroy the character of the villages of Cockernhoe, Mangrove and Tea Green, disrupt community life and cause coalescence. It proposes replacing the existing ancient landscape with an artificially created 'amenity area'.
Policy SP19 directly contradicts the established principle of coalescence that is in place to protect small communities, by advocating 'the integration of existing settlements.'
This attempt to disguise a volte-face on what village communities need is being promoted to provide just 150 homes for Herts - the remaining thousands to accommodate Luton's needs which appear to be escalating (Policy SP8) and requiring even more Herts land.
The location is inappropriate for development since it encroaches on Green Belt land and is very badly located in relation to transport links to all the main routes to the West and the effect of the extra traffic burden on local country lanes in Hertfordshire.
Object
Proposed Main Modifications
MM083 - Page 71 Policy SP19
Representation ID: 7201
Received: 28/02/2019
Respondent: The Breachwood Green Society
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
See attached
Policy SP1 - Stated policy is to ensure the vitality of the district's villages and protect the biodiversity of the landscape. This is directly contradicted by the East of Luton Development. This would destroy the character of the villages of Cockernhoe, Mangrove and Tea Green, disrupt community life and cause coalescence. It proposes replacing the existing ancient landscape with an artificially created 'amenity area'.
Policy SP19 directly contradicts the established principle of coalescence that is in place to protect small communities, by advocating 'the integration of existing settlements.'
This attempt to disguise a volte-face on what village communities need is being promoted to provide just 150 homes for Herts - the remaining thousands to accommodate Luton's needs which appear to be escalating (Policy SP8) and requiring even more Herts land.
The location is inappropriate for development since it encroaches on Green Belt land and is very badly located in relation to transport links to all the main routes to the West and the effect of the extra traffic burden on local country lanes in Hertfordshire.