AS1 Land west of Claybush Road

With particular reference to Ashwell:
Regarding CLAYBUSH ROAD (site AS1) for 33 houses

The inclusion of this site in the emerging plan seems ignore a number of principals that have been enshrined in both the current and proposed district plans. For instance:

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). There is no footpath possible on Bygrave road and the Bear Lane footpath has 19 steps.

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. These two directives seemed to have been ignored while drawing up the new plan.

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 stated before the extension of the boundary goes against all previous planning rules especially when consideration is taken into the fact that other large ( for Ashwell) developments have already been built in recent years - Walkdens, Broadchalke, Philosopher's Gate, and Sunnymede - and according to the research the Parish council have put in there is no proven need for the type of housing proposed.

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) and there is now reason to suppose that this has lessened.

I agree with Ashwell Parish Council that there is no objection to the principle of development and am pleased that it 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)

I am writing to you to register my objection to the part of the above Local Plan consultation which includes extending the Ashwell village boundary to include the Claybush Road site (site AS1) for development.
My reasons for objecting are as follows:
1. The site AS1 has been investigated by the Traffic section and has been failed on the grounds that access to/from the site both for pedestrians and vehicles is not safe .

2. The Neighbourhood Draft plan for Ashwell shows the results of a housing requirement survey when all the village was consulted, that the type of housing required is affordable housing for young families and suitable housing for older people. Both of these groups of people would find it hard to access both the school and the rest of the village ( for shopping and access of facilities such as Medical services) as site AS1 only has pedestrian access via a busy road or a pathway via steps. Both of these are unsafe and difficult to negotiate for the groups concerned.
3. Site AS1 fails to meet the criteria set to protect Historic environment, in this case a scheduled ancient monument of Arbury Banks this monument is protected by NPPF and NHDC policies.

4. Other sites have been put forward for alternative development and these have not been considered or put out for consultation to the local people. These other sites would be more suitable for the type of housing required as indicated by the village population and would have safer vehicular and pedestrian access.

I would like to suggest that the NHDC Planning reconsider the development plans for Ashwell and to consider these alternative sites as being more suitable for needs of the community.

I write as a local resident in Ashwell where I have been living for 2 years.

I wish to register my objections to the NHDC Local Plan for Ashwell.

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.

As a resident of Ashwell village I hereby object to yet more proposed housing in Ashwell Village.

* 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 wish to object about the proposed development at the above site, on grounds of its failure to meet requirements relating to:
* highway safety
* protected valued landscapes
* protected historic environments
In addition, I have not seen reasons why other locations (also outside the parish boundary but deemed more appropriate by the Parish Council) are not being considered.

I wish to register my opposition to the NHDC proposed local plan for the following reasons:
1. Site AS1 does not comply with the obligation to protect important landscapes, and is within the North Baldock Chalk Upland Character area, where development is restricted both be National Planning policy and by your own ;local planning policy., as it is

2. The site does not meet the needs of highway safety to protect pedestrians and other users, as defined in the National Planning Policy framework and the NHDC's own policy.

3. Site AS1 does not meet the requirement to protect the historical environment, as it is inside the scheduled ancient monument Arbury Banks, and is protected by both the NPPF and NHDFC policies.

4. I also protest because the NHDC has not consulted on the proposal to extend the settlement boundary in other locations which are not AS1

5. Local views, expressed by Ashwell Parish Council have not been properly taken into account, nor the suggestions for alternative development been properly considered.

I would like to support the detailed responses contained in the document submitted by Ashwell Parish Council. I particular I would like to raise the following objections on grounds of soundness in the NHDC proposals:
- 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 1).
- Site AS1 fails to meet the reqirements to PROTECT VALUED LANDSCAPES. The site is within the North Baldock Chalk Uplands Character Area and development is restricted under NATIONAL 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 object to the proposed development off Claybush Road in Ashwell, Hertfordshire. I am a local resident and feel the proposal is flawed on a number of levels in relation to national planning policy. Please see my objections below:
* 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 hope the proposal will be refused on these grounds.

I would like to object to the proposed development off Claybush Road in Ashwell, Hertfordshire. I am a local resident and feel the proposal is flawed on a number of levels in relation to national planning policy. Please see my objections below:
* 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 hope the proposal will be refused on these grounds.

I strongly object to the above development for the reasons below:

* 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.

Ashwell does not have to infrastructure to support further development. The drainage systems are poor and around busy times, eg Xmas there is often a problem with blockages.
The High Street is frequently overwhelmed with parked cars. This is an irritation but is also very dangerous for the children trying to get to and from school and cross the road safely.

The service at the surgery, which also serves Bassingbourn is already poor. Waiting 2 weeks for an appointment and rarely able to see a Dr of choice, more families will add to the pressure on this already stretched service.

The village has recently lost it's Post Office, which was a valuable service.

I would like to register my objections to Claybush Road (site AS1) plan for 33 houses in Ashwell:

Public transport is already limited in Ashwell. Further housing will very likely increase car use.
The school is already at capacity.
There is no provision for safe footpath, especially for elderly or disabled.
The site is within the setting of the ancient monument, Arbury Banks.
Development is restricted under NPPF and NHDC planning policy.

I am writing to raise the following objections to the proposed development in Claybush Road in Ashwell.

Our 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.

Many thanks for noting our concerns to this ill thought out proposal.

I have reviewed the NHDC Local Plan Submission proposal and would like to lodge the following objection. I consider the proposed for development in Ashwell off Claybush Rd. (Site AS1 for 33 houses) to be ill-considered.

With the nearby development to the north of Baldock it can hardly be said that there is a local need. Ashwell has a good record of allowing development to meet the needs of the village and statistically have exceeded the national requirement. The proposed housing stock planned for this site hardly meet the needs, in type or location, to fulfill the needs of the varied population of the village.

Highway Safety. The main issue is that of safety, both pedestrian and traffic. The only practical vehicular access and egress onto the site is onto minor, but busy, roads of restricted width and with poor sight-line possibilities. Owing to mature high banks and already challenged width, both roads have no space to introduce footpaths. Equally, there is an issue of steep elevation change from the site towards the village centre for access by, particularly older pedestrians, to medical facilities and social amenities. A stepped pathway has been mooted but this will not allow for use by pedestrian with mobility problems or those with young children in buggies etc. . Hence, the requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the NHDC's own current and emerging planning policy for Highway Safety (Policy T1) are being ignored.

Heritage. Secondly, the Site AS1 fails to meet the requirement to protect the historic environment. The site lies within the setting of the scheduled ancient monument of Arbury Banks. This monument is already protected by both the NPPF and the NHDC Policy (SP 13, paragraph 4.151).

Settlement Boundary. Site AS1 would extend the village built-up area onto the high ground south of the escarpment, below which the village sits to the North today. As such it would not only overlook the existing village but would create an unnatural skyline when looking South. Additionally, the proposed development would obstruct the views North from adjacent fields, this being contrary to the government advice set out in the NPPF to conserve the natural environment which contributes to the local distinctiveness of the area.

Soundness of the plan. Lastly, the NHDC has failed to consult on the proposals to extend the settlement boundary in locations other than Site AS1. Presumably there would be favour in available sites that do not involve this extension: Policy SP 2 refers. However, this presumption seems to be ill-founded.

Ashwell has many things going for its population but, notwithstanding the need to further develop the infrastructure adequately to meet the needs of growth, Site AS 1 is not in the right place for further development. If this is allowed to go ahead it will be the thin end of the wedge to introduce a segregated 'upper and lower' village. The only entities to gain from development on site AS1 would be the land owner and the developer.

I would like to object to the Claybush development site 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 am very local to the area concerned write to oppose the proposal for settlement boundary for Ashwell to be extended on the objection that the Site, AS1, fails to the meet 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).

My opposition is applicable and amply demonstrated by my previous correspondence to you of 29.8.16 whereby I stated that:-

1. Any entrance and exit into Claybush Hill is dangerous because of traffic speeding downhill into Ashwell despite the Speed Signs. At the apex at the bottom of Claybush Hill the traffic turning left is completely blind at that corner which is just 50 yards from the School back gate and which is used both mornings and afternoons by children going to school.

2. There is no footpath at any point from the proposed boundary in Claybush Hill which is on a very steep hill until the top of Bear Lane (another steep hill) and then 17 steep steps have to be traversed to get down to a pathway. Certainly not suitable for elderly people or mothers with pushchairs with other children going to school at the bottom of Bear Lane during what will be still "rush hour" traffic. These steps will have to be used - there is no alternative.

3. Cars, school taxis and buses are parked along this triangle of road between Claybush Hilll and Ashwell Street at the back entrance to the school, at the most busy times of the day and it is hazardous not only for the children but for residents of Ashwell Street as their sight line is diminished by parked cars and there have been several incidents because of this. People park there because the rest of Bear Lane and local roads are already congested and full of parked vehicles as is the High Street and the Rose and Crown car park, which has kindly allowed parents to use because the problem is so bad.

4. Parking at the Railway Station is totally oversubscribed with very many cars parked on grass verges along the length of Station Road and Ashwell Road - which can be witnessed at any day.

5. Ashwell is used as a rate run to and from the A1M and Baldock with streams of traffic at the most busy times of day.

Once again I stress I am completely in opposition to the N.H. Local Plan Proposed Submission Local Plan which involves the Ashwell boundary being extended because of the reasons given above. I do believe that the Plan has been generated from a desk bound position and would benefit by council highway officials by visiting Ashwell over a period of time and witnessing the enormous pressure and safety that we have with traffic

You have not listened to the Ashwell Parish Council.

You have not listened to the people of Ashwell.

I wish to object to the above plan :-
1. On the grounds that Site AS1 does not meet the requirements for highway safety.
2. NHDC has failed to consult on proposals to extend the settlement boundary in other locations .
3. Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements to protect valued Chalk Upland landscapes.
4. Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements to protect the historic environment. - Arbury Banks.
5. There is no mention of the provision of extra schools, doctors and dentists which are already stretched and over-subscribed, and bus and train services. The bus services are woefully inadequate especially in the villages, as they keep being cut. Also, the volume of traffic will be much increased and there will be a need for many more parking facilities.
I hope NHDC will reconsider all the above and not ignore the views of those of us who will have to cope with their decisions.

The NHDC Local Plan is open for Public Consultation. The Local Plan proposes the building of 14,000 houses in North Herts. The settlement boundary for development in Ashwell will be extended and will include the Claybush Rd (site AS1) for 33 houses. I wish to object to the inclusion of this site in the Local Plan 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).

* Further to the hundreds of previous objections to this site, here is another in relation to the Claybush Road site in Ashwell
* Claybush Road is a high speed road, with poor lines of visibility when approaching the village, and has no pavements. This 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).
* 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 village, Ashwell has proposed alternative, more appropriate sites for development - and despite all of these consultation processes, has so far been roundly ignored.

As Ashwell residents my wife and I wish to register our objections to the proposed planning application at Claybush Road.
Our objections are as follows:
1. 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).
2. 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.
3. 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).
We would be most grateful for confirmation you have received our objections.

We are strongly objecting to the proposed plans of building another 33 homes on Claybush Road, outside Ashwell, Hertfordshire.

Village boundaries exist so that villages can keep their village character. It would be a dangerous precedent to re-draw this line for the proposed development, and similar plans have been rejected in the past for good reasons.

Recently, quite a few new houses have been built within the village boundary, in line with and above government requirements, and absorbing more people is simply untenable for our village facilities and social fabric.

Our school is already overcrowded, often with classes of over 30 pupils, or costly smaller split classes that require extra personnel, which the school can't afford. The school is trying to reduce its intake to make class sizes fairer on children and teachers, and adding children from the proposed development would undermine that effort.

It is already difficult to obtain an appointment within a week at our doctor's surgery, which leaves especially older people and young families vulnerable.

The sewerage and water systems are old with leaks and blockages already occurring.

Ashwell's streets are already clogged with cars and further influx would lead to complete chaos during peak hours.

On a different note, we also find the site wholly unsuitable for development, as the descent on foot into the village would be treacherous for older people, families or those with disabilities.

Finally, the density of the site exceeds that of the rest of the village and would alter its character.

Our opinion is that building a completely new town or village would do much to ease the tensions occurring in our village as well as other villages in the home counties, be it for infrastructural, social or practical reasons.

We furthermore object to the Ba1 development as this is a severe encroachment on pristine countryside and nearly starts to absorb a neighbouring village.

Many thanks for taking our objection seriously.

I propose this build for this proposed site.

I wish to register my objection to the development on the Claybush Road, Ashwell for the following reasons:- Highway Safety
- Access for pedestrians is inadequate as there is no level route to the village centre.
- The junction with Ashwell street is in arrow and already dangerous, especially when school buses arrive.
- car parking within the village is already a problem, and a further, possibly 50 cars will only make a dangerous situation worse.
Landscapes
- The site does not protect valuable landscape as required by the NPPF and North Herts own planning policy.
Historic Environment
- The site is close to a scheduled ancient monument (Arbury Banks) Consultations
- the response from North Herts has been inadequate.
Village services
- Neither the school nor the surgery are adequate for the current population, let alone for a further 100 residents.

I hope that you will, once again, reject this proposal.

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 planing 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)

I look forward to hearing the outcome.

I am objecting to this Planning Application for the following reasons:

This application is a complete rejection of both local democracy and the recently commissioned housing survey in Ashwell. Having rejected applications for many, many years the council now wants to grant permission to the developers. WHY? Having received a massive rejection of their proposals from the local parish council and the community of Ashwell, the NHDC does what. It changes the regulations surrounding the proposed development. Talk about the inmates running the asylum.
No attempt to accept the concerns about the loss of a visual aspect, or the lack of a footpath. This will lead to parents putting their children into the back of a "Chelsea Tractor" to make a journey into the village centre. Given the current shambolic situation with vehicle parking in the village, this can not make a bad situation any better. The fact that this development will not address the need for small units both as starter homes and for the elderly downsizing clearly does not matter to our elected councillors. School numbers, does not seem to matter that the school is a bursting point, after all it will not be HNDC councillors children receiving a poorer education due to over crowding.
Clearly the development does not address the needs of the community.
The real decision to be made here is;
a) Allow the development and thus allow the developer to maximises their profits whilst not full filling the needs of local community.
OR
b) rejected the plan and work with the parish council to develop and number of small scale sites, which satisfy the needs of the community.

Seems like a no brainier, so WHY are we yet again trying to foist a unsuitable development a community who know what its needs are.
The village is already at a point where large scale development of this size would further be a further erosion of the QUALITY of LIFE. There comes a point where a additional exploitation of a given situation can only result in the destruction of that situation, this case the village.
Adding another 100 plus individuals and some 50 or 60 more vehicles can not make a bad situation better. In response to those people supporting this development hoping it will result in affordable housing, all this in all means is that in reality that they will sold off to the highest bidder. Resulting in people from London arriving in the village and thus helping to create yet another commuter ghetto.

I object to the Local Plan put forward by NHDC.
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
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.

Ashwell site AS1 does not meet the requirements for highway safety to protect pedestrians and other road users as defined I 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 valued landscapes. The site is within the North Baldock Chalk Uplands Character Area 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. The site is within the setting of 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.

* We are writing to object to the proposed plan to put 33 new houses on this site in Claybush Road. Whilst we understand the pressure on Government and North Herts Council to provide new homes we feel that this site is unsuitable for the proposed development. The entrance into Ashwell provides a generally unspoilt view across open fields driving from or the A505. This development will have the effect of blighting this landscape. It will also spoil the views from the nearby Arbury Banks archaeological site.
* The access to & exit from the proposed site onto Claybush road will we fear be a danger both to traffic entering Ashwell & exiting this the proposed very narrow site exit & would appear to contravene your own planning guidelines.
* There is no public footpath to or from the site and it would/will be very difficult for the elderly or handicapped to access the site because of the lack of footpath & also the steep climb from the village centre(& facilities).
* We have recently been sent a copy of the draft of the Ashwell local plan. This development ignores the wishes of the local villagers & the choice of other local sites in the village that have been identified by the Parish Council with the imput of local people. These other sites offer better and safer access. The primary need identified in Ashwell is homes for elderly residents to downsize to and starter homes for younger people. Because its location the Claybush site will not meet these needs.
* To summarise this proposed development is against the wishes of the local community, appears in conflict with the national Planning Policy framework and the community plans of North Herts Council (P.60 and Page 134 of the Local Plan.

I am writing to object to the local plan, particularly the inclusion of the Claybush Road site in Ashwell.
* 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). The road sees high speed traffic every day - at all times of the day and night - with no pavement and extremely poor lines of visibility. I was almost hit by cars almost every day that I walked down the hill to school with my mum and sister - I cannot imagine more cars using the road - it will be a disaster.
* 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.
Ashwell has proposed alternative, more suitable sites for development - and despite extensive consultation processes - where we have been asked repeatedly to write in with our objections, these alternative suggestions and our objections have been completely ignored.

I am writing to object to the local plan, particularly the inclusion of the Claybush Road site in Ashwell.
* 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). The road sees high speed traffic every day - at all times of the day and night - with no pavement and extremely poor lines of visibility.
* 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.
Ashwell has proposed alternative, more suitable sites for development - and despite extensive consultation processes - where we have been asked repeatedly to write in with our objections, these alternative suggestions and our objections have been completely ignored.