AS1 Land west of Claybush Road

I object to the inclusion of site AS1 in the NH local plan. The inclusion of this site is unsound because
* Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements for highway safety to protect pedestrians and other road users as defined in both National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and NHDC's own current and emerging planning policy for Highway Safety (Policy T1).
* Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements to protect valued landscapes. The site is within the North Baldock Chalk Uplands Character Area and development is restricted under National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and NHDC's own local planning policy, both current and emerging.
* Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements to protect the historic environment. The site is within the setting of the scheduled ancient monument Arbury Banks and is protected by NPPF and NHDC policy (SP13, para 4.151).
* NHDC has failed to consult on the proposals to extend the settlement boundary in locations other than AS1 (within which there would be a presumption in favour of development; Policy SP2) and has not responded adequately to previous representations.

The inclusion of this site appears to be unsound in that
1. Pedestrian access is dangerous due to the lack of footpaths on the Bygrave Road and thus building houses in the area would not conform with national and local policies.
2. It overlooks Arbury Banks, a protected ancient monument and development is thus restricted due to national and local policies.
3. The site is within a protected landscape area and thus development is restricted by national and local policies.

The objections are based on the basis of the following:
Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements for highway safety to protect pedestrians and other road users.

Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements to protect valued landscapes. The site is within the North Baldock chalk uplands character area, whereas development is restricted under National Planning Policy Framework and NHDC's own local planning policy.

Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements to protect the historic environment, whereas the site is within the setting of the scheduled ancient monument, Arbury Banks is protected by NPPF and NHDC Policy.

Land acquired for Site AS1 has previously had planning applications refused by NHDC in 1978, 1987 and 1996 for the same reasons as highlighted above. The NHDC planning inspector upheld the refusal decision at the time stating that ' I conclude that the conservation of good quality rural land, and the protection of the setting of an important historic village overrides the general presumption in favour of allowing proposals for development'. The area has not changed since this decision, so the same conclusion should apply.

I have seen many changes to our village. This current application fails to meet the requirements for highway safety protecting pedestrians and other road users (this should be paramount when considering a housing site) as defined in both National Planning Policy Framework and NHDC's own current and emerging planning policy for highway safety.

This site AS1 also fails to meet he requirements to protect the historic environment. It is within the setting of the ancient monument Arbury Banks and is protected by NPPF and NHDC policy.

It beggars belief that Ashwell, along with other villages, was invited to submit a neighbourhood plan only for you to choose to ignore some of the most important details contained in it.
a. a need for smaller houses to cater for young families and elderly people wishing to downsize.
b. the plan identified areas within the existing village boundary where it would be
possible to accommodate (a) and fulfill our quota of new houses. Instead you
choose to suggest extending the boundary to a site on top of a hill.
At some time I assume that the plan is for this site to be developed for housing. For the housing the village needs this would be one of the most unsuitable sites. We have no footpath into the village, on occasions cars enter the village at great speed and where Claybush Hill joins Ashwell Street there is a very dangerous blind bend, cars block Bear Hill four times a day and the only existing small amount of footpath has seventeen steep steps. Added to all of this is the fact that the hill is steep. Why would anyone want to include such a site within the village? I can only assume that the landowner has no purpose for this site and wishes to benefit financially, he certainly has no thought for the people who might live there.
As our elected representatives I would ask you to think again.

I object to the draft consultation and the inclusion of site AS1 on several grounds based on the soundness of the NHDC Local Plan.

These objections can be summarised as

*Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements for highway safety to protect pedestrians and other road users as defined in both National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and NHDC's own current and emerging planning policy for Highway Safety (Policy T1).
*Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements to protect valued landscapes. The site is within the North Baldock Chalk Uplands Character Area and development is restricted under National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and NHDC's own local planning policy, both current and emerging.
*Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements to protect the historic environment. The site is within the setting of the scheduled ancient monument Arbury Banks and is protected by NPPF and NHDC policy (SP13, para 4.151).
*NHDC has failed to consult on the proposals to extend the settlement boundary in locations other than AS1 (within which there would be a presumption in favour of development; Policy SP2) and has not responded adequately to previous representations.

I do not support the allocation of site AS1.

Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements for highway safety to protect pedestrians and other road users as defined in both National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and NHDC's own current and emerging planning policy for Highway Safety (Policy T1).

Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements to protect valued landscapes. The site is within the North Baldock Chalk Uplands Character Area and development is restricted under National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and NHDC's own local planning policy, both current and emerging.

Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements to protect the historic environment. The site is within the setting of the scheduled ancient monument Arbury Banks and is protected by NPPF and NHDC policy (SP13, para 4.151).

NHDC has failed to consult on the proposals to extend the settlement boundary in locations other than AS1 (within which there would be a presumption in favour of development; Policy SP2) and has not responded adequately to previous representations.

I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the comments of Ashwell Parish Council in the evaluation of the proposed Site AS1 plans and record my objections to these.

Whilst personally I am not qualified in terms of the legal nuances and procedures I understand that there are legal aspects to the proposal raised by the Parish Council as follows;

These objections to the soundness of the NHDC Local Plan for Ashwell can be summarised as
*Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements for highway safety to protect pedestrians and other road users as defined in both National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and NHDC's own current and emerging planning policy for Highway Safety (Policy T1).
*Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements to protect valued landscapes. The site is within the North Baldock Chalk Uplands Character Area and development is restricted under National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and NHDC's own local planning policy, both current and emerging.
*Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements to protect the historic environment. The site is within the setting of the scheduled ancient monument Arbury Banks and is protected by NPPF and NHDC policy (SP13, para 4.151).
*NHDC has failed to consult on the proposals to extend the settlement boundary in locations other than AS1 (within which there would be a presumption in favour of development; Policy SP2) and has not responded adequately to previous representations.
In addition to the above I am also concerned that with the planned development of the factory site in Ashwell Street that this area of the village will become extremely congested. You only have to see the excess number of cars already parked on bends, near junctions in Ashwell Street to realise that more housing will lead to a compromise of safety.

Ashwell is a beautiful historical village surrounded by relatively unspoiled agricultural land. The people who live in and around the village chose to continue to live here because of the character of the village. However, there has been a constant trickle of small-medium housing developments permitted by NHDC over the past years which has pushed the central village and its services to bursting point.

For example, the high street (the only vehicular way through the village as as peripheral roads are one way / very narrow) is practically unusable at rush hour. One used to have the odd car parked on either side of the road and traffic would weave back and forth along the road using the gaps. Now there are long continuous blocks of parked cars the full length of the high street, and all it takes is for two lorries to meet each other and one can be stuck for 20-30 minutes, whilst traffic builds up, vehicles mount pavements etc.

It is unsustainable, and has been caused both by natural trends in car ownership but also by the council allowing the village density to increase through all the developments, converting farm buildings into more housing etc. If anyone is reviewing the feasibility of this development I invite them to drive the length of the high street at 8am and see if they still think it is advisable to proceed with another 30+ homes' worth of cars.

This argument also applies to all the key services in town, including:

* the school, where families who live in the village now have real fears as to whether their primary-school age children will end up having to go to schools elsewhere
* sewage, in that there have been several incidents of waste water backing up into properties
* broadband - the village was recently named by the BBC as having the "second-slowest broadband in the country, slower than Everest base-camp"

Every single additional house built in the village compounds these problems. NHDC is effectively trying to turn Ashwell village into Ashwell town. It is not able to cope with this, to the detriment of all the existing residents plus all those who will occupy the new development. It is for this reason I suggest the new development is not sound.

Furthermore I note that:

* Planning permission for developing site AS1 has been rejected three times for all these good reasons above and many others. Bringing it in via this plan is effectively trying to sneak it in via "the back door".

* Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements for highway safety to protect pedestrians and other road users as defined in both National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and NHDC's own current and emerging planning policy for Highway Safety (Policy T1).

* Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements to protect valued landscapes. The site is within the North Baldock Chalk Uplands Character Area and development is restricted under National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and NHDC's own local planning policy, both current and emerging.

* Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements to protect the historic environment. The site is within the setting of the scheduled ancient monument Arbury Banks and is protected by NPPF and NHDC policy (SP13, para 4.151).

* NHDC has failed to consult on the proposals to extend the settlement boundary in locations other than AS1 (within which there would be a presumption in favour of development; Policy SP2) and has not responded adequately to previous representations.

* I do not believe development of site AS1 is legally compliant as it may breach existing residents' rights under the ECHR - articles 8 and article 1 of protocol 1, particularly when one considers that the village has fought this proposed development three times and had it rejected, for very good reasons, only for it to appear again now.

* I do not believe it complies with the Duty to Cooperate as it seems that the Ashwell Parish Council's views, which surely should be primary in any decision about whether to permit development in the village, seem to be ignored.

A considerable number of people of Ashwell have already objected to this planning for west of Claybush Road so having to submit our comments again appears that you are trying to get this through planning in a deceptive way.

If everywhere is forced to increase housing then villages will become towns, towns become cities and the countryside will no longer have any small villages remaining.

Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements for highway safety to protect pedestrians and other road users as defined in both National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and NHDC's own current and emerging planning policy for Highway Safety (Policy T1).

Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements to protect valued landscapes. The site is within the North Baldock Chalk Uplands Character Area and development is restricted under National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and NHDC's own local planning policy, both current and emerging.

Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements to protect the historic environment. The site is within the setting of the scheduled ancient monument Arbury Banks and is protected by NPPF and NHDC policy (SP13, para 4.151).

NHDC has failed to consult on the proposals to extend the settlement boundary in locations other than AS1 (within which there would be a presumption in favour of development; Policy SP2) and has not responded adequately to previous representations.

If the boundary is extended successfully there will be further efforts to extend it even further.

The development is on the skyline and will be a blot on the landscape.

The school is unable to absorb more pupils and the site is already significantly restricted for expansion. The school is already above maximum capacity and the class size is reducing following discussions with the education authority.

Site AS1 lies outside the current village boundary which has been altered by the NHDC without consultation and as such is unjustified.
The site is totally unsuitable for development. There is a steep slope down to the core of the village, a footpath is narrow and has many steps so is not suitable for those in wheelchairs or pushing a child's seat.
The roadway from the site is dangerous, there is no footway down Claybush Hill nor any chance of providing one as there are steep banks on either side. The corner into Ashwell Street is blind and narrow so walkers would be at great peril.
There is a significant scheduled ancient monument, Arbury Banks, close by the site and there may be significant archaeological deposits below ground.
Previous planning applications on this site have been rejected on three occasions by the NHDC and on appeal by the Inspector. The reasons given have centred around the siting above the village and the intrusion on the sky line apart from the reasons given above.

Site AS1 does NOT meet the requirements for highway safety to protect pedestrians and other road users as defined in both NPPF and NHDC's own current and emerging planning policy for Highway Safety Policy T1) It is not possible to create a safe pedestrian access due to the sloping site and narrow roads.
There are other issues with protecting valued landscapes and the historic environment.
The process by which you are seeking responses is completely flawed. This form is almost impossible to engage with. The section under Soundness Test does not make sense and must have been drafted with the specific aim to make it impossible for most people to respond. There should be 'I don't know' buttons, not just Yes and No.
As for 'Appear at examination', I take it to mean that I could ask to come to the 'examination' but this again is not made clear. I suspect that the form has been designed to confuse people who quite legitimately would like to engage with the Local Plan, and to deter people from commenting.

We object to the NHDC Local Plan for Ashwell because we believe the Local Plan is unsound because it is not consistent with National Policies (especially NPPF 11). When this site was originally offered to NHDC by the landowner in July 2009 as a potential development site NHDC failed to take adequate account of historical expert assessments which concluded it was unsuitable for development. Having included it in their draft Local Plan options NHDC have subsequently persisted in ignoring past & recent expert evidence which highlights the unsuitability of the proposed site AS1, and also ignored the views of the large number of residents of Ashwell who have criticised the inclusion of site AS1. NHDC have failed to explain their reasons for continuing to include the site. We also object to the proposed changes to the Settlement Boundary on grounds of the change being unjustified and lacking consultation or justification. Site AS1 fails the Soundness test on the following grounds:
* It fails to meet the requirements to protect valued landscapes. The site is within the North Baldock Chalk Uplands Character Area and development is restricted under National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and NHDC's own local planning policy, both current and emerging.
* It fails to meet the requirements to protect the historic environment. The site is within the setting of the scheduled ancient monument Arbury Banks and is protected by NPPF and NHDC policy (SP13, para 4.151).
* It fails to meet the requirements for highway safety to protect pedestrians and other road users as defined in both National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and NHDC's own current and emerging planning policy for Highway Safety (Policy T1).
* NHDC has failed to consult on the proposals to extend the settlement boundary in locations other than AS1 (within which there would be a presumption in favour of development; Policy SP2) and has not responded adequately to previous representations.

Hundreds of people were reassured by Levett, Hunter and Oliver Heald that they would be listened to when they came to a meeting of 300 people in Ashwell and at every stage we have been ignored. The village has put forward alternatives and have clearly stated why they object to the site. AS1 flies in the face of Ashwell's design statement, emerging Neighbourhood plan and recent housing survey. Ashwell has been very developed in the last few years and has already exceeded the quota of 69 houses for the period in question. Building in this village has been well over the national average for housebuilding.
Highways have turned down the site saying there is no sight line on Claybush Road. The site has been turned down my many official inspectors in the past for good reason. The housing development would will ruin the outline of the village and the landscape as seen from Bedfordshire. The houses will extend the ribbon far up the hillside and the houses will be seen from very entry into the village. There are far more suitable places to have housing and the village survey has clearly come out in favour of small developments which suit the needs of the elderly. This will free up bigger houses in the village for younger families. What is needed is low lying secure bungalows.
Pedestrian access: The developers have not sought to win permission to put a footpath across a private driveway on Ashwell Street. The track is not tarmacked; it has an uneven, pot-holed surface which is unsuitable for wide pedestrian, wheel chair or pram use. There is no room for separation between pedestrians and vehicles. The council have never maintained the road. It not a bye-way It is not used by the general public, it is used only by the owners of the houses on Ashwell Street. Furthermore the street cannot be marked because it is a rural, green, leafy track. There is no room for the provision of a passing/waiting area. Guideline 3 of Policy 57 of the Local Plan requires residential road and footpaths to be 'safe, convenient and easily maintained routes for people and traffic to move around'. Amongst other things, it requires that a road and footpath layout provides safe and convenient pedestrian routes between homes and local community facilities and creates safe routes for vehicular movement.
A recent large development was turned down by an inspector because parties agreed that it would not be possible for vehicles to pass on a single track section. The track on Ashwell Street, is narrower than the one referred to on Green Lane and it is even harder to navigate because of the blind turn. This would make it impossible for any vehicle to pass a pedestrian and consequently it would be necessary for vehicles to reverse in order to allow a person to pass.
The waste collection vehicles and large tankers providing oil to houses on our street would not be happy about this proposal. They have no turn around area so they have to reverse down the 2.9m-wide path! There are many regulations on how far the council workers can reverse.
They would have to negotiate a perpendicular turn onto Ashwell Street: it is a very narrow, blind corner (the hedge on either side is 8 foot high). The proposed path is used cars and there is no room for a person and car to go down the street at the same time. This part of Ashwell Street is only 290cm wide! Wheel chair access and access for the partially-sighted again is non-existent. Then they would have to turn left out of the Ashwell street junction where there is no sight line, go left down the lower part of Ashwell Street, then walk down the twitchells connecting Ashwell Street to Dixies Close. The twitchell is in 1.1 m wide and 40m long and has a gradient of 1:5. The visibility is impeded on this footpath as there is a bend roughly at mid-point. This prevents any pedestrian with a buggy or wheelchair from seeing other pedestrians and users coming in the opposite direction. The gradient is greater that the statutory regulations relating to wheelchairs which is 1 in 20.
It would be very dangerous also if children were to take a short cut and cross the corner at the top of Bear Lane. The proposal would no accord with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
The village was not consulted on a change of boundary. Inspectors in 1987 stressed that the view of the medieval church tower would be interrupted by building on the field. The School has reduced its pan to 30 and will return classes to a single year group. This is to balance its budget. The school is physically too small for a double entry. So there will be reduced school places next year.

I object to the inclusion of the Claybush Road (site AS1) for 33 houses as part of the Ashwell village plan.

It is unsuitable on many accounts. The pedestrian access to the site is very poor, with no footpaths to the village centre nor space to create them. Similarly vehicle access is from a narrow country road which is already too busy for its nature during rush hour - for 33 dwellings, potentially another 60 vehicles leaving & entering Claybush Road twice a day would be likely to cause accidents. Thus Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements for highway safety.

The site is also the most elevated in the village, ruining the natural beauty of the entrance to a historic village. It is also close to the ancient monument, Arbury Banks. Therefore it fails to meet the requirements to protect valued landscapes and the historic environment.

The planning application for this site has already been rejected several times and nothing has altered to make the site more suitable.

I wish to object to the proposed development at Claybush Road in Ashwell (once again) due to the access issues which I believe means that the site is unsuitable for the elderly and for young families with children. The road is dangerous and does not allow for safe passage to the village and the school. In addition I object to building houses outside of the village boundary and for threatening the very special Arbury Banks historically important site. I would go on but I am disgusted at having to object AGAIN (three times) over the same application.

As Ashwell residents (since 1977) we both fully support the Claybush Road development. The housing is desperately needed, and we believe that the detailed plans are very good.

I am writing to you in response to the final stage of developing the Claybush Rd site in Ashwell. I would like to raise my family's objections to the recent planning application for said site.

Personally we are aware that Ashwell Parish Council has already objected to the inclusion of the Claybush Hill site (AS1) in the emerging local plan knowing it to be unsound, in so far as it is not consistent with National Policies (especially NPPF 11). APC is being proactive, through the Neighbourhood Plan, in identifying what type of development is required to satisfy the housing needs of the village & the sites suitable for it. Yet NHDC continue to ignore both the work of the APC in identifying the real needs of our community & the concerns & views of us villagers. This is undemocratic & fails to satisfy the requirements for local democracy (Localism Act 2011).

To summarize in brief....

AS1 fails to meet the requirements to protect the historic environment. This site will be in the setting of the ancient monument Arbury banks and is protected by NPPF & NHDC policy.

Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements for highway safety to protect pedestrians & other road users as defined in both NPPF & NHDC's own current & emerging planning policy.

Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements to protect valued landscapes. The site is within the North Baldock Chalk Uplands Character area & development is restricted under NPPF & NHDC's own local planning policy, both current & emerging.

NHDC has failed to consult on the proposals to extend the settlement boundary in locations other than AS1, within which there would be a presumption in favour of development; Policy SP2, & has not responded adequately to previous representations.

I truly hope you take the time to consider all the objections raised by myself & others.

I would, once again, wish to object to the proposal to include AS1 within the NHDC Local Plan. I wish to support all the points which have been put forward forcefully by the Ashwell Parish Council but would like to vigorously stress the following.

AS1 fundamentally fails to meet the requirements to provide highway safety for both pedestrians and road users alike. Vehicular access to the site will provide both difficult and dangerous, with limited sight lines and acute access onto a narrow and steeply declining road only yards within the 30MPH speed limit.

No pedestrian access from the site down Claybush Hill is currently available. Any proposed footpath would be both narrow (without encroaching onto an already narrow lane) and unrealistically steep which in combination would make it totally unsuitable for wheelchair or any disabled access. Furthermore Claybush Hill already terminates in a complex and blind T-Junction opposite the local school which at peak times becomes heavily congested.

The proposed pedestrian access, via the unmade and unadopted Ashwell Street would terminate in 19 steps before joining the Bear Lane route into the village, again totally unsuitable for disabled access. Moreover the proposed access would involve crossing a complex junction of four roads.

Furthermore NHDC has failed to consider the alternative sites which have been volunteered for consideration by the Ashwell Parish Council thus demonstrating an arrogant disregard for local democracy.

I strongly object to the continued proposal to develop the Claybush Hill site.

I am sending you this as I find your online consultation system so complicated that it is unusable - no surprises there - it's a sort of gagging mechanism to keep the people quiet.

I am objecting specifically to the Claybush RD (site AS1) and more generally to the local plan as a whole.

I am objecting to this development YET AGAIN as I gather that anything I have said previously has been completely ignored. I have lost all faith in the so-called public consultation system as NHDC have already decided that they can build whatever they want wherever they want. What is the point in consulting the public if you ignore what they say? I shall not waste my time going into great detail.

Will you be providing proper traffic controls to counter the extra traffic on its commuter rat-run that this development will produce?

No, you will not.

Will you and the developers provide any reasonable pedestrian access for the people who take their lives into their own hands by walking the roads amongst speeding motorists?

No, you will not.

Will you be providing extra school space and funding for the new children who will be moving in?

No, you will not.

Will you even maintain the inadequate sewers and drains that flood the village every time it rains moderately hard, let alone improve them so that they can cope with the extra run off water this development will create?

No, you will not. Instead you will lie to us about permeable surfaces, soakaways and the system being fit to cope with the extra development.

Will you come and dry out my house when it floods YET AGAIN as a result of your already inadequate drains and COMPLETE lack of maintainence?

No, you will not. You will instead continue to ignore me pleas for help and pretend there is no problem as long as ther High St remains open to road traffic.

Will you be behaving as a sensible, moderate planning regulator, protecting invaluable greenbelt and restraining the thirst for get-rich-quick overdevelopment and following a democratic process of genuinely listening to the views of those who entrusted you with power?

No you will not. You are hand-in-glove with those developers.

THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. IT IS A CORRUPT DICTATORSHIP.

THIS LOCAL PLAN IS A CRASS,STUPID AND IGNORANT PIECE OF PLANNING.

ANY COUNCIL WHO ALLOWS DEVELOPMENT ON THE SCALE THAT NHDC IS PLANNING IN THIS LOCALITY IS NOT FIT TO GOVERN.

I support this partly because I am happy that it increases Ashwell's allocation to above the suggested 69, as we need to check the relentless rise in rents and house prices. However, planning conditions should ensure:
1. Paving of the pedestrian access to the junction with Ashwell St (private Rd) wide enough for a disabled buggy. It should be emphasised to residents that this is a better pedestrian route than Claybush Road.
2. Use low-pitched roofs to reduce the height of two-storey houses so as to reduces their prominence.
3 Specify at least 6 months access for archaeologists. (The site may be archaeologically important.) The archaeological site of Arbury Banks is only marginally relevant, as it is about 800m away
4. There should be a firm commitment that the sewage system is upgraded for that part of the village.

Comments on the Parish Council's response.
1. They make a big issue of having identified 3 alternative sites. There seem to have been no planning applications, which makes evaluation harder and creates some scepticism about whether they will actually happen . They claim the Partridge Hill site has good vehicular and pedestrian access, but Partridge Hill has no footpath and is narrower than Claybush Rd or Bear Lane. It is also on a slope similar to Bear Lane. The I D Products site seems reasonable. Development on the Land behind Dixies Meadow is likely to be controversial.
2. They claim there is no bus stop within 400m, but many of the houses are within 400m via the pedestrian access, and all are within 500m.
3. They say footpath provision is unsafe, mainly because there is no footpath on either the narrow section of Ashwell St, nor on part of Bear Lane. But many Ashwell streets have no footpath (e.g. Kingsland Way). Also, all of Bear Lane has a footpath, although part of it has shallow steps. To avoid the steps requires walking on a relatively short section from the top to about 20m above Dixies Close. (There is a footpath across the corner). Cars sometimes park in this section, particularly for a few minutes at school start and finish times, but most cars park further down the road where there is a footpath. Parking could be discourage on the part without a footpath. Children going to school from the Ashwell St area mostly use the rear school entrance, which avoids using Bear Lane.
4. They complain that AS1 is not within walking distance of the village centre (on the debatable grounds of safety), yet two of their preferred sites are considerably further away. (Partridge Hill and I D Products.)
5. The PC claim that Bear Lane has a 1:10 slope is is a considerable exaggeration. (And their claim in the "emerging Neighbourhood Plan" (6.1.5) on the uphill side of Ashwell St is steeper than 1:6 is a complete fantasy.)

The site is unsuitable for the following reasons:
* Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements for highway safety to protect pedestrians and other road users as defined in both National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and NHDC's own current and emerging planning policy for Highway Safety (Policy T1).
* Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements to protect valued landscapes. The site is within the North Baldock Chalk Uplands Character Area and development is restricted under National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and NHDC's own local planning policy, both current and emerging.
* Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements to protect the historic environment. The site is within the setting of the scheduled ancient monument Arbury Banks and is protected by NPPF and NHDC policy (SP13, para 4.151).
* NHDC has failed to consult on the proposals to extend the settlement boundary in locations other than AS1 (within which there would be a presumption in favour of development; Policy SP2) and has not responded adequately to previous representations.
NHDC has had over 130 objections to this site during the first consultation on this site last year. It had only one in support. This site was put forward for planning permission this year. Over 250 people objected this year. Only 3 people wrote in in support. It remains manifestly unpopular. The Council must refer the government inspector to these recent objections, as to claim that they are not relevant because they are in a different stage or process is manifestly unfair, unreasonable and unsound. The council have a duty to consider the democratic view of those affect by development.

This site has been put forward for development on numerous occasions and has always been rejected as it is unsuitable. It remains unsuitable. Ashwell has exceeded it's targets for development since the 2011 targets were put in place. It is offering alternative sites for consideration in the village which are suitable. The Council must not ignore these and must give weight to the will of the village to build appropriate housing in the right places in the village.

Ashwell is a beautiful historical village surrounded by relatively unspoiled agricultural land. The people who live in and around the village chose to continue to live here because of the character of the village. However, there has been a constant trickle of small-medium housing developments permitted by NHDC over the past years which has pushed the central village and its services to bursting point.

For example, the high street (the only vehicular way through the village as as peripheral roads are one way / very narrow) is practically unusable at rush hour. One used to have the odd car parked on either side of the road and traffic would weave back and forth along the road using the gaps. Now there are long continuous blocks of parked cars the full length of the high street, and all it takes is for two lorries to meet each other and one can be stuck for 20-30 minutes, whilst traffic builds up, vehicles mount pavements etc.

It is unsustainable, and has been caused both by natural trends in car ownership but also by the council allowing the village density to increase through all the developments, converting farm buildings into more housing etc. If anyone is reviewing the feasibility of this development I invite them to drive the length of the high street at 8am and see if they still think it is advisable to proceed with another 30+ homes' worth of cars.

This argument also applies to all the key services in town, including:

* the school, where families who live in the village now have real fears as to whether their primary-school age children will end up having to go to schools elsewhere
* sewage, in that there have been several incidents of waste water backing up into properties
* broadband - the village was recently named by the BBC as having the "second-slowest broadband in the country, slower than Everest base-camp"

Every single additional house built in the village compounds these problems. NHDC is effectively trying to turn Ashwell village into Ashwell town. It is not able to cope with this, to the detriment of all the existing residents plus all those who will occupy the new development. It is for this reason I suggest the new development is not sound.

Furthermore I note that:

* Planning permission for developing site AS1 has been rejected three times for all these good reasons above and many others. Bringing it in via this plan is effectively trying to sneak it in via "the back door".

* Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements for highway safety to protect pedestrians and other road users as defined in both National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and NHDC's own current and emerging planning policy for Highway Safety (Policy T1).

* Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements to protect valued landscapes. The site is within the North Baldock Chalk Uplands Character Area and development is restricted under National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and NHDC's own local planning policy, both current and emerging.

* Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements to protect the historic environment. The site is within the setting of the scheduled ancient monument Arbury Banks and is protected by NPPF and NHDC policy (SP13, para 4.151).

* NHDC has failed to consult on the proposals to extend the settlement boundary in locations other than AS1 (within which there would be a presumption in favour of development; Policy SP2) and has not responded adequately to previous representations.

* I do not believe development of site AS1 is legally compliant as it may breach existing residents' rights under the ECHR - articles 8 and article 1 of protocol 1, particularly when one considers that the village has fought this proposed development three times and had it rejected, for very good reasons, only for it to appear again now.

* I do not believe it complies with the Duty to Cooperate as it seems that the Ashwell Parish Council's views, which surely should be primary in any decision about whether to permit development in the village, seem to be ignored.

There are adequate sites within the village without extending beyond the settlement boundary and NHDC has failed to respond adequately to previous representations.

I should like to object strongly to this site being included in the local plan. The council has already rejected applications for development on this site on more than three occasions in recent years, for good reasons which still essentially apply.

This is a greenfield site, outside the village boundary and there has been no consultation with the village to extend it.

The site is in an elevated locations, overlooking the whole village and adjacent to and in direct sight of conservation areas and areas of outstanding natural beauty the amenity value of which would be significantly diminished were development on this site to be allowed.

Furthermore the density of the proposed development far exceeds that of the surrounding parts of the village and would and so would be out of character with and be seriously detrimental to these.

The most significant objection however derives for the nature for the adjacent road system and the significant hazards presents to both vehicular and pedestrian traffic.

The site fails to meet statutory requirements in terms of highway safety to protect pedestrians and other road users as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework and NHDC's own current and emerging planning policy for highway safety.

The approach to the village via Claybush Road at this point is narrow and has no pavements. There are no pavements either on most of the adjacent sections of Ashwell Street.

The junction between Claybush Road and Ashwell Street is extremely hazardous. Not only are there no pavements the road is narrow and the corner virtually blind if turning left in a northerly direction - the route taken by most traffic entering the village here.

The junction abuts the rear entrance to the village school and it is obstructed by the school busses at set down and pick up times (no laybys)and parents dropping off or collecting children frequently park along the roadside here.

The verges and adjacent gardens here re frequently damaged by large vehicles running up over them to get round the parked buses and parked cars.

All this presents a significant hazard to pedestrians particularly parents and children making their way to the school.

Claybush road is also frequently used by individual or groups of cyclists making there way into the village - often too fast as they run down the hill into the village.

The is literally a serious accident waiting to happen here and the proposed development , should it go ahead, will add significantly to the vehicular and pedestrian traffic rendering such an accident even more likely.

The centre of the important and historic village of Ashwell is already overcrowded and over congested with vehicles and the location and elevations of the proposed development means occupiers of the properties will almost certain us there cars most of the time when visiting the shops or other amenities in the centre of the village - so adding to and exasperating this.

Furthermore village amenities such as the school and the doctors surgery are already overstretched and could not cope with the increase in populous a development of this size would bring about.

For all these reason I strongly request the council remove this site from consideration

See attachment

* Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements for highway safety to protect pedestrians and other road users
* Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements to protect valued landscapes. The site is within the North Baldock Chalk Uplands Character Area and development is restricted under National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and NHDC's own local planning policy.
*The site is within the setting of the scheduled ancient monument Arbury Banks and is protected
* NHDC has failed to consult on the proposals to extend the settlement boundary in locations other than AS1 and has not responded adequately to previous representations.

I object to this development because

Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements for Highway safety to protect pedestrians and other road users as defined in both National Planning Policy framework and NHDC's own current and emerging Planning policy for highway safety
It also does not meet requirements to protect valued landscapes under the NPPF
It does not the requirement to protect the Historic environment and is protected by NPPF and NHDC policy Sp13. para 4.151 of the document
There has been no consultation to extend the settlement boundary in locations other than AS1 by NHDC

This site does not meet the NHDC planning policies as it does not maintain or enhance the character or visual quality of the village or the surrounding area.

The development will impose on the village and impact upon views from Ashwell Church and Arbury Banks and be an unsightly incursion into the rural scene.

Access is inadequate and unsafe. The only public path has steps and is impossible for the elderly and disabled.

The village's infrastructure cannot sustain a development of this size.

There is sufficient available land within the village boundary to provide for the needs of the village.

I write to object to the NHDC local plan in respect of the choice of site AS1 in the parish of Ashwell on the grounds that itis not sound, justified, effective or consistent with national policy. I make the following points:

1 As part of the process of devising a local plan NHDC were required to consult the people of North Hertfordshire. This they did but, in the case of Ashwell, the response of the majority of those who responded has been ignored.

NHDC were offered a number of other sites, three of which were offered by the Ashwell Neighbourhood Plan Working Group. The owners of these sites, two of which are brownfield sites, were approached and asked if they would put them forward. They agreed. One of the sites failed many of the criteria which the Working Group had set but it was decided by the Group to put it in to the emerging Plan as it offered private housing for older people which had been identified as a serious lack in the parish in a housing survey carried out by the Group in 2015. The site is outside the village boundary and is larger than the maximum of ten units that was identified in the survey. However, it offered land that is close to the centre of the village, on flat land and close to the shop, surgery and pubs. It also has the advantage of a potential parking area for the village which is desperately needed.

NHDC was informed about these sites informally in December 2015 and the again more formally when they were sent a copy of the emerging Neighbourhood Plan. Although these three sites offer more units that that proposed in the Local Plan no action was taken by NHDC.

2 Policies 13.10 and 13.11 suggest that there is footpath access from the centre of the village to AS1. As this is up 19 steps it does not comply with the need for access by people in wheelchairs and those with prams and pushchairs.

3 The junction at Ashwell Street/Bear Lane is already complex and dangerous. As people walking from site AS1 to the village centre, down the 19 steps, will need to cross this junction it could be very dangerous for children going to Ashwell School which is on the other side of Bear Lane. As walking down Claybush Road would be very dangerous all, including small children, would have to cross this junction.

4 AS1 is a site that has had at least three planning application turn down at least one went to appeal (July 1987). This application was for four houses. The reason for denying planning permission was that the view from Claybush Hill of the tower of St Mary's Church would be interfered with thus contravening Section 11 of the NPPF. This also goes against NHDC's own Character Landscape Assessment (2011).

5 The NHDC Heritage Assessment for Ashwell completed in June 2016 recommends a small development in the north west corner of the site and for houses no higher than 11/2 stories. In other words they are going against their own advice.

6 NHDC is suggesting that 33 houses could be built on AS1. This goes against all their previous thinking (see also 5 above) and against the policy 6.i, building density should decrease from the centre of the village and policy 6.n, New housing development should be small-scale, unless it meets a specific, identified local need, of the Ashwell Village Design Statement which has been adopted as supplementary planning guidance by NHDC.

7 NHDC did not, according senior planner, do any assessment on the effect of sites in the Local Plan on the minor roads of the District. The development of the area to the north of Baldock could have a detrimental effect on Ashwell if people living there and working in Cambridge talk a route through Ashwell to the A509. As suggested above the village already has major traffic problems and does not need these added to.