AS1 Land west of Claybush Road

Ashwell is a beautiful historical village surrounded by relatively unspoiled agricultural land. A constant trickle of small-medium housing developments permitted by NHDC over the past years has pushed the central village and its services to bursting point.

The high street is practically unusable at rush hour with long continuous blocks of parked cars the full length (as nearly all houses do not have off road parking). This is unsustainable and will be worsened by allowing the village density to increase with large blocks of 30+ new homes.

The school is not in a position to accept a large number of new local children.

There have been several incidents of waste water issues.

Every single additional house built in the village compounds these problems and 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.

* 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.

We object to this housing allocation. This is a large 'estate' type development located in a prominent position on the south eastern side of the village. The site has been the subject of a number of refused planning applications and a dismissed appeal in 1987. It seems perverse that, with this long history, the Council now considers that the site should be imposed upon Ashwell, when previously it has been considered to be entirely unsatisfactory and harmful to the settlement.

In its response to this current Local Plan submission, the Ashwell PC made clear the extent of objections made by local residents to site AS1 as being inappropriately sited in a prominent position and damaging to the character of the village. The local view is that housing should be smaller in scale and designed to meet the identified needs of the settlement.

The site at the corner of Springhead and Cow Lane (see paragraph 13.5 Development Boundary) which we propose for inclusion in the Development Boundary would meet the identified housing requirements, as identified by the PC, for an individual dwelling for an existing resident to "downsize" and thereby release a larger family home for a growing family in the village. This type of small scale development has minimal impact on the character and appearance of the village, but brings with it the benefit of enabling a younger family to grow without the need to move, thus maintaining and supporting the age range of the population of the village. This is consistent with the approach to sustainable development, as set out in Policy SP1 paragraph (b) "to support long-term viability of the district villages".

The proposed development would impact the village significantly coming as it does along with other newly developed sights in the parish. The village school is over-subscribed and the roads in and around the village are very busy. The railway station closest to the development site is Baldock which is already a busy station with the train operator planning to cut services. Not to mention the proposal to build 2800 houses in effect a whole new town just a few miles away near Bygrave. This is all going to put untold pressure on the local area.

* 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 following comments relate to the proposed Local Housing Allocation on Land West of Claybush Road (AS1)

1. This proposal fails to meet the Soundness criteria. It is not Positively prepared - for example, no detail is given as to how impact on Ashwell Primary School would be addressed. Under Infrastucture and Mitigation, it is noted that

13.12 'Additional education provision will be needed in Ashwell during the Plan period, funding will therefore be sought to ensure the local education infrastructure can accommodate the additional demand arising from the site.'

Given that additional education provision is likely to mean the construction of a new school, the lack of detail in this area is a major shortcoming in the Plan.

It is not Justified - since it has been put forward without reference to the alternative sites identified through the Parish Council's draft Neighbourhood Plan. The proposal would yield 33 out of a planned total of 95 new homes. The remaining 62 (65% of the total) have already been completed or permitted since the start of the Local Plan period. NHDC has not made clear its reasons for preferring one single site in order to meet its planned total, rather than spread new homes across different locations in Ashwell.

It is not Effective; it will not enable the delivery of sustainable development, in view of the severe limitations on pedestrian and vehicular access to the Claybush Road site - and the related concerns for safety. The proposal does not meet the requirements of NHDC's Policy T1: Assessment of Transport Matters, as set out in the draft Local Plan.

It is not Consistent with national policy. Requirements from the National Planning Policy Framework which are not adequately addressed in the Plan include:-

- 'Identify what infrastructure will be required to support planned development'

As noted above, the consequences of proposed new housing off Claybush Road would exacerbate existing pressures on Ashwell Primary School - and bring forward the need for an entirely school. The Plan gives no detail in this regard.

- 'Where potential harm to relevant natural or historic assets may occur, consider this against the public benefits that may arise from any proposed development.'

NHDC's consideration of previous planning applications for new homes to the west of Claybush Road has given due regard to impacts on the natural and historic environment. These factors remain - and were repeatedly highlighted in representations from Ashwell Parish Council, and from individual citizens, against the 2016 Planning Application from Croudace Homes.

I would like to object to the plans for Claybush Rd (site AS1) 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.

I oppose to the to the District Plan with regard to AS1 for 33 houses.

SP2 The District Council has failed to consult with the Parish Council on the proposal to extend the settlement boundary of our village. The council seems to have done this just in order to include site ASI without looking at the village as a whole and without consultation as to where it might be judicious to make other boundary changes. Therefore this approach to boundary changes was not justified.

North Herts District council has been made aware of the work of the Ashwell Neighbourhood Plan under the auspices of the Parish Council. The PC is aware that the plan is in its formative stages but already a housing survey has been conducted and the results made known to the planners. Also made known to the planners was the fact that other sites that are more in keeping with the village have been identified. At a meeting held in the village on 10 January 2015 attended by the local MP and the Councillor in charge of the draft district plan project, it was stated that the emerging policy of the Neighbourhood Plan would be taken into account and the PC was urged to put this forward. At meetings since then it was obvious that this was NOT taken account of. Therefore this point should be taken under the heading Sound because it was not positively prepared

The site AS1 identified in the plan is a protected valued landscape and has been turned down by NHDC on several occasions and does not fit in with the National Planning Framework Section 11 concerving and enhancing the natural environment. One only has to stand on this site to see what a negative affect it will have on the chalk uplands of this part of North Hertfordshire. I object that this is not sound or positively prepared as the village has other sites - made known to NHDC - which could incorporate more houses.

I strongly object to this planning application for the following reasons:

* Both North Herts District Council and an inspector from the government's Department of the Environment have rejected planning applications for this site on previous occasions - July 1987, November 1978 and August 1996. Nothing has changed to make this a suitable site for development.

* The site is outside the village development boundary and there has been no consultation within the village to extend this.

* The site failed NHDC's own environmental criteria - see your Landscape Character Assessment p151. Nothing has changed on the site.

* The site fails to met the requirements for highway safety as defined in NHDC's planning policy on highway safety (policy T1). With no pavement or adequate room for access to and from this site it is unsafe for pedestrians who will therefore use their cars to use village amenities. Each house is likely to have a minimum of two cars which means the potential of another 66 cars on Ashwell's streets! The village is already turning into a car park - it cannot sustain yet more vehicles. How can this support the government's declaration to reduce vehicle emissions?

* Without a pavement to walk into the village from Claybush Road and with nowhere to park in Ashwell, the potential residents of Site AS1 will turn their backs on Ashwell's shops and amenities and drive to the nearest town. How does this fit in with the Strategic Policies for North Hertfordshire's alleged support for local retail and service outlets?

* Ashwell's infrastructure cannot sustain this site. Our sewerage system is old and will not cope with additional demand. Building on any field in elevated parts of the village will increase rainwater run off with subsequent increase in the flooding which Hodwell and Mill Street already experience.

* Ashwell Parish Council has repeatedly offered NHDC alternative sites within the village but these have been ignored.

* The response to a survey undertaken by Ashwell's Neighbourhood Plan Group was clear on housing needs. We need small units for the elderly of the village in the centre of the village. These would free up family homes of which about a quarter are currently single (mainly elderly) person owned and occupied. An opportunity to provide small units was lost when planning permission was given for large properties on the Whitby Farm site. NHDC clearly has no intention of providing what Ashwell actually needs!

The NHDC Local Plan for Ashwell fails to meet highway safety requirements, fails to protect valued landscapes and the historic environment, fails to consult on the extension of the settlement boundary and fails to take into consideration the needs of the people of Ashwell.

We have seen the Public Notice Order in Claybush Road, Ashwell with regard to this proposed planning application for 33 New Houses behind nos 4-14 Claybush Road. This is in close proximity to Arbury Bank, an Iron Age Settlement. It is our wish that North Herts District Council will find it within their powers to Refuse this application.
Allowing this development would put impossible pressure on the Sewage System which is failing. (We, ourselves are on Septic Tank since we are below the Sewage Works.)
The access is along a narrow track onto a narrow road, all of which could not have a pavement on the track or on Claybush Road leading into the village. Sight lines are very difficult which in itself could lead to an unnecessary accident.
The School is currently experiencing problems and there are plans to reduce pupil numbers. This could mean very young children being taken by bus out of the village for education.
With this potential increase in population ever piece of farm land should be retained to sustain food supply. This was WW11 policy. With immigration as it stands we will need that land to provide a crop.

It is a further case of a site being proposed for unsuitable development.

Please refuse this application.

I wish to register my strong objection to the use of this site for building 33 houses. The plans have already, and rightly, been rejected more than once. The site is not easy of access, especially for the elderly; there is no footpath for the descent into the village; the site is up a considerable slope, and the aesthetic effect of building there would impair the skyline and the look of Ashwell as an ancient contained village within its original rural setting for ever. It is well understood that the infrastructure and services of the village would be severely overloaded. It is hard to find any good reason for building there ; I understand there are other areas whose appropriateness has not been fully explored, and I trust that these will be considered before Claybush Hill is threatened once again. Ashwell's needs, as set out in the Neighbourhood Plan, are different, and the AS1 site meets none of them.

I write in relation to the proposed changes to Ashwell village boundary in the Local Plan.

The extension of the village boundary to include site AS1 as a potential building site is contrary to NPPF and NHDC's own planning policy. Applications for building on this site have been rejected on at least three previous occasions based on ".....impact on an important landscape in an historic area....." Nothing has changed!
In relation to NHDC's policy on Highway Safety building on the site would create very high risks to pedestrian and vehicular traffic. It is not within a safe walking distance of village amenities and is elevated above the village by such an amount as to pose serious accessibility problems for the elderly and those taking children to the local school.
The site is a greenfield, bio-diverse area of archaeological interest. It has no readily accessible bus or train services and would create a significant increase in vehicular traffic.
The village is not opposed to housing development in principle. Alternative sites have been identified within the village boundary in the imminent Neighbourhood Plan, matching identified housing needs including, importantly, accessibility for people with mobility difficulties to village amenities.
For these reasons I consider that site AS1 as a potential building site is inappropriate - it is in the wrong place and, given the record and outlook for housing development in Ashwell, it is not necessary.

See attached

I am a longstanding resident of Ashwell and I strongly denounce and object to the development on Claybush Rd of 33 houses . I am one of the 343 residents who in September of this year wrote to you objecting to the proposal

There has been no consultation with Ashwell residents on the move to extend the settlement boundary of the village What is happening to the due process of our democratic voice ?
The site is a greenfield site and Ashwell has already shown in the Neighbourhood Plan more suitable sites and the type of development required to satisfy required needs ie smaller units in a more suitable location The council is also to be condemned for ignoring the experts' evidence which contradicts the suitability of site AS1 for a new development .
To build large executive style houses on this site contradicts the needs already identified by the views of residents that there is a shortage of smaller dwellings for the young Also the older villagers could free up the larger properties they occupy and are wanting to down size Can we have some common sense applied to this problem and have the actual requirements of the village addressed please ? If you must cover more open land with concrete and cause more flooding at least build something useful and affordable

See attached

See attached

I am writing to confirm my objection to proposed development on site AS1 on the following grounds:-

Highway safety - The site fails to meet the requirements for highway safety to protect pedestrians and other road users as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework and NHDC's own policy for highway safety including the specific conditions for access to site AS1 in the draft local plan.

Protected valued landscape - The site is within the North Baldock Chalk Uplands and development is restricted under NPPF and NHDC's own local planning policy, both current and emerging.

Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements to protect the historic environment. Government advice set out in the NPPF seeks to conserve the natural environment which contributes to the to the local distinctiveness of the area. Plans and policies should ensure that new development preserves or enhances historic buildings and landscapes, conservation areas and important archaeological features and their settings. The planners have not taken into account the reasons given by the inspector on an appeal for housing on the site in 1987. The report stated that the view, particularly of the medieval church tower would be interrupted by building on the site.

Alternative sites to accommodate the proposed housing based on feedback from the Neighbourhood Plan commissioned by the Parish Council had not been taken into account.

In a consultation on the proposed site AS1, of 134 respondents only 1 was in favour of development on the site.

We object because of highway safety
protect landscape
Protect historic environment
Failed to consult on the proposals to extend the village boundary.

I object to the local plan for Ashwell on the following grounds:
* 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 am writing to object to the proposed development at Claybush Road AS1. My objections are as follows:

1.Failure to meet requirements for highway safety. The road will be very dangerous point for slower pedestrians and children to cross. No matter how many safety routes are put, in children will often take the shortest route. It is also a dangerous blind corner for cars; I was involved in a car accident on this corner 18 months ago.

2. Failure to protect a valued landscape. This is a beautiful upland chalk area, giving stunning views across the counties. Ashwell nestles in the natural hollow, building up onto the chalk means the view of Ashwell will also change into a more sprawling development.

3. Failure to protect an historic environment. Walking across Arbury Banks provides the feeling that people have walked here for thousands of years. Building onto the area would ruin this impression of history. When my children were younger we would go to Arbury Banks to watch the stars, as many families have done since Medieval times. Building a housing developement would introduce light pollution, so this ancient of activities would not be so dramatic.

4. Failure to consult on other proposals. Surely there must be somewhere else in the village that developments could take place.

5. Changing the skyline of Ashwell. The housing development has some proposed dwellings higher than 2 floors. Building houses so tall, on such a hill, would mean they were visible for miles around. Indeed the red balloons put up by the developers were visible from neighbouring villages. The most prominent building in the village should be the church - not a new build house.

All in all it would be a shameful and shocking loss to our village.

Please accept this email as our objection to the above proposal based on:

-Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements for the highway safety to protect pedestrians and other road users as defined in both the 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.

As a resident of Ashwell for 25 years I wish to add my voice to the objections for building houses on the Claybush Road site. My objections are related to:

The fact that the site does not meet the requirements for Highway Safety
The plan AS1 does not meet the requirements regarding Protected Value Landscapes
The site does not meet the requirements to Protect the Historic Environment
NHDC has not consulted on its proposal to Extend the Settlement Boundary

Ashwell is a community that thinks proactively and positively about housing needs. As a resident I have been asked my views about local development and kept informed about potential plans. The needs of the village have been clearly identified to cater for younger locals wishing to make a start in the place they grew up in and older residents who might wish to downsize. Residents are aware of the pressure on local authorities to build more houses but are determined to have their voices heard about the appropriate way of going about this in their own context. Other suitable sites have been identified so this is not a protectionist of "NIMBY esque" reaction.

Please listen to the reasoned responses from residents who do have a social conscience but who care about protecting their environment.

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 on green belt land and for threatening the very special 'Arbury Banks' historically important site.
I'm also sure little consideration has been given to rain fall run off causing flooding in the village below, the fact that the Dr's surgery is oversubscribed and they are having difficulty recruiting Drs and the general village infrastructure cannot cope already let alone with the prospect of 33 dwellings potentially housing 132+ people and 99+ vehicles!!

We agree with the objections set out by the Parish council, and object to the proposal, on the following grounds:

* 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 am writing to file my objection to the proposed 33 new homes off Claybush Road

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.

I am writing regarding the plans to build 33 houses on the Claybush site.
Firstly from a purely aesthetic point of view . Why must everything be spoilt?. I was brought up in a small village in the North West. Recently it was inundated because of too much development.
The Claybush site is a difficult one because of the terrain, quite unsuitable for people with health problems. It is a severe climb to the site. We already have terrible problems with our surgery, much worse than other areas which will only be exacerbated by this building plan. 33 extra houses will not improve this situation. Also the school accommodation cannot accept extra pupils. There are already too many cars in Ashwell.
Why not do as suggested? 10 houses in one location, another 10 in another location.
Does every village have to become a small town? The people whose families have lived here for centuries are also resisting this development that will alter the whole fabric of the village they love. It is outside the boundaries of the present village.

The residents of Ashwell continue to object to this proposed development as we feel that all our representations (including 135 relevant and specific letters of objection, and Parish Council representations), have been and continue to be ignored. The goal posts are continually changing, and there appears to be an agenda to force this proposal through regardless of the opinions of the vast majority of the people, and common sense interpretation of planning policies. Could this be democracy in action, 2016 version?

There has been no consultation to build on this land, having been previously rejected on 3 separate occasions, neither has it appeared in any Village Plan or study. A housing development here is inappropriate as it is outside the existing agreed village boundary; is elevated and will seriously affect the visual aspect of the village, in particular Arbury Banks ancient monument, the adjacent Conservation Area, the North Baldock Chalk Uplands Character Area, and the approaches from Bygrave. The intention to amend the settlement boundary to accommodate it, makes complete nonsense of any previous policies, agreements and consultations.

Vehicle and pedestrian access to the site is far too narrow and will be hazardous as the entrance onto Clay bush road will be on a left hand bend, on a sharp downhill slope with a poor visual sight line and adjacent school premises. Additionally the proposed building of 2800 houses north of Baldock (Site SP14) will significantly increase vehicular movements on Claybush Road, as it will throughout the village.

Although not a planning issue, village services, roads and infrastructure are already severely stretched, and there are no plans, willor money to improve them.

Ashwell is already well ahead of its requirement for new homes, and there is no identified local rural housing need or a need for the local community or for agricultural workers etc. It will take a further 1.74 hectares of agricultural land out of production, which the country long term cannot afford. There is no sensible reason to use this green belt land.

Taking the English countryside for granted and assuming that it will always be there, is one of its greatest threats. Successive administrations have done almost nothing to preserve our countryside. If we seriously value our rural villages and local countryside, this proposal must be rejected yet again, as nothing has changed, only the political pressure to change.

Ashwell is a historically significant village dating back over 800 years.
The proposed development is poorly planned and does not provide the type of accommodation that is needed in the village. The access to the site is dangerous and the plans misleading. Elderly disabled and young residents would not be able to access the village safely from this location.
Alternative sites in Ashwell and surrounding areas have not been fully explored prior to the submitting of this proposal, which is opportune and unwanted by the residents. The development will significantly impact on the historical feel of the village once lost this will not be able to be replaced. Why put a suburban estate in a prominent position in one of the jewels of Hertfordshire ?

We also object to the development AS1 on the following technical grounds.
*
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.

As a resident of Ashwell, I am writing to you to object to the settlement boundary extension in Ashwell to include the Claybush Rd (site AS1) for 33 houses 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 the 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 in 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).

Finally we are in danger of destroying what it means to live in a village by expanding and expanding our villages until they become towns, and then in due course there will simply be a merging of these towns with the consequence that Southern and Eastern England is finally concreted over.

I look forward to receiving an acknowledgement of my objections.

I am writing to file my objection to the proposed 33 new homes off Claybush Road

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.

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 (Policy T1).

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).

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.

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.

Site AS1 has a history of planning applications which have been rejected by NHDC, and on appeal, because of the adverse impact on the environment ( ref; NPPF Policy 1).

Ashwell Parish Council has no objection to the principle of development and has been proactive, through its Neighbourhood Plan , in identifying what type of development is desired and required to satisfy the housing needs of the village and the sites suitable for it. These would more than adequately satisfy the number of units required.
It seems unjust that NHDC seems to have ignored both the work of Ashwell Parish Council in identifying the real needs of the community, and the widespread concerns of the residents. This is undemocratic and fails to satisfy the requirements for local democracy ( Localism Act 2011)