GA1 Land at Roundwood (Graveley parish)

See attachment

I am writing to place my objection about the GA2 development on land to the North of Great Ashby, Herts.

We urge North Hertfordshire District Council to remove GA1 and GA2 from
the list of allocated sites for development in North Stevenage and consider the implications to all those involved/affected.

Objections/reasons against GA1/GA2 include:

Greenbelt is precious and should not be developed - building on these sites contravene protected status and this precedence must not be set.
Greenbelt areas are important to prevent urban sprawl, stop towns from merging, protect the countryside and promote urban regeneration. The
density of the proposed housing is of city nature and not suited to Greenbelt countryside, I believe it is not inline with the 2007 Urban design assessment report commissioned by NHDC.

The land in GA2 houses a rich and diverse amount of wildlife including endangered red kites, barn owls, bats and the currently protected
badger. NHDC have a DUTY to conserve the biodiversity of this area. The muntjac deer population has already seriously decreased since Great Ashby was built. Further development would be catastrophic to our wildlife. GA2 would totally encompass ancient woodland and a natural spring, building in this area would destroy valuable wildlife habitats.

A development of this magnitude would be visibly intrusive and harm the character and appearance of an area of outstanding beauty scattered with
listed buildings and villages, such as Graveley. This area is used and enjoyed by many people, footpaths and bridleways crossing the proposed
sites GA1 & GA2 form part of the historic Hertfordshire way and are frequented by many ramblers, horse riders and dog walkers.

The infrastructure is not suitable for another 2000 homes. Traffic through Great Ashby is already at capacity and congested with many
parked cars and can be quite dangerous at peak times.

Doctors surgeries in North Stevenage are struggling with the extra volume of patients already.

Proposed developments are remote from the retail and commercial centres of Stevenage and Hitchin, many businesses are already struggling in
Stevenage and a number of shops have closed in the town centre. Extra housing would put severe pressure on an already lack of employment. For
commuters, trains are already at full capacity during peak times and the A1 is congested.

Socially affordable housing is not mentioned within the proposals, surely local councils should be considering the needs of people already
living in Stevenage & the huge waiting lists .

We understand that housing is needed but feel it would be more sensible to build a completely new settlement/garden city somewhere with
reasonable transport links, but away from any towns or villages and NOT at the loss of important Green Belt or woodland. A new settlement that
over time can grow to meet the needs of the people with the correct infrastructure designed into it from the beginning and would create
thousands of jobs and new employment. We also urge local councils and government to build on brown field sites as an alternative and to look
at the many thousands of boarded up council homes that lay dormant
across the UK.

Please confirm receipt of this objection.

I am writing to you to object against the plans to build 900 homes on the stated sites. Great Ashby already has major issues with lack of essential amenities such as: doctors surgery, dentist, schools, parking, public transport etc. To extend further would be a grave mistake. To lose a large chunk of green belt to housing when there are other options available is a huge error. Great Ashby is struggling to cope with the current levels of housing/residents and to add to that would be poor judgement. We life on a small island and must cherish our green land and preserve it for future generations, not rip it up for housing developers to make themselves richer. I understand housing is an issue but all other possibilities must be considered before tearing apart our wonderful countryside to fill the pockets of those already fortunate. The area cannot cope with another 900 houses and potentially 4000 residents.

I am writing to place my objection about the GA2 development on land to the North of Great Ashby, Herts.

We urge North Hertfordshire District Council to remove GA1 and GA2 from the list of allocated sites for development in North Stevenage and consider the implications to all those involved/affected.

Objections/reasons against GA1/GA2 include:

Greenbelt is precious and should not be developed - building on these sites contravene protected status and this precedence must not be set. Greenbelt areas are important to prevent urban sprawl, stop towns from merging, protect the countryside and promote urban regeneration. The density of the proposed housing is of city nature and not suited to Greenbelt countryside, I believe it is not inline with the 2007 Urban design assessment report commissioned by NHDC.

The land in GA2 houses a rich and diverse amount of wildlife including endangered red kites, barn owls, bats and the currently protected badger. NHDC have a DUTY to conserve the biodiversity of this area. The muntjac deer population has already seriously decreased since Great Ashby was built. Further development would be catastrophic to our wildlife. GA2 would totally encompass ancient woodland and a natural spring, building in this area would destroy valuable wildlife habitats.

A development of this magnitude would be visibly intrusive and harm the character and appearance of an area of outstanding beauty scattered with listed buildings and villages, such as Graveley. This area is used and enjoyed by many people, footpaths and bridleways crossing the proposed sites GA1 & GA2 form part of the historic Hertfordshire way and are frequented by many ramblers, horse riders and dog walkers.

The infrastructure is not suitable for another 2000 homes. Traffic through Great Ashby is already at capacity and congested with many parked cars and can be quite dangerous at peak times.

Doctors surgeries in North Stevenage are struggling with the extra volume of patients already.

Proposed developments are remote from the retail and commercial centres of Stevenage and Hitchin, many businesses are already struggling in Stevenage and a number of shops have closed in the town centre. Extra housing would put severe pressure on an already lack of employment. For commuters, trains are already at full capacity during peak times and the A1 is congested.

Socially affordable housing is not mentioned within the proposals, surely local councils should be considering the needs of people already living in Stevenage & the huge waiting lists .

We understand that housing is needed but feel it would be more sensible to build a completely new settlement/garden city somewhere with reasonable transport links, but away from any towns or villages and NOT at the loss of important Green Belt or woodland. A new settlement that over time can grow to meet the needs of the people with the correct infrastructure designed into it from the beginning and would create thousands of jobs and new employment. We also urge local councils and government to build on brown field sites as an alternative and to look at the many thousands of boarded up council homes that lay dormant across the UK.

Please confirm receipt of this objection.

Having seen the alternative parking options, I am unconvinced by the soundness of the Plans, especially where it is suggested that there be on street parking along Mendip Way. Having seen how traffic is obstructed on Great Ashby way due to the presence of parked cars across from the main bus stop, this proposal strike me as naïve and dangerous. Considering the high number of young families already in Great Ashby and likely to be attracted to the new development, the Plan also does not show how GA2 and GA2 will cater for their needs when Round Diamond Primary School is already oversubscribed and

Additionally, plans to widen roads by removing grass verges, fail to take into consideration the needs of both blind residents in the area who require the adequately sized pavements to manoeuvre safely with stick or guide dog, and also wheelchair bound or similarly physically disabled residents who would be imperilled by smaller pavements along roads where cars drive quite quickly and with obstructions preventing drivers seeing pedestrians in the form of parked cars.

Currently there is neither dentist nor doctor's surgery in Great Ashby, and creating further developments without strict assurances of budgeted and physical space allocation is short-sighted and unsound.

I believe that the lack of allocated garages of a decent size and access as well as the lack of off road parking for residents in general will put greater strain on the existing residential and main roads, and increase traffic due to the need to manoeuvre around on street parked cars that cannot be parked elsewhere.

The premise of providing affordable housing is a shallow and unsound one that due to the likelihood of such housing still remaining unaffordable to young people, will lead to a similar increase in HMOs due to buyers being buy-to-let opportunists. This will put further strain on resources such as parking space, transportation, and health care as each plot will not hold the planned for individual family unit, but multiple individuals who cannot afford the housing independently..

I object to plans to develop the land north of Great Ashby on both the GA1 and GA2 sites. My objection is based on following points:
* Infrastructure - There is insufficient consideration of the impact of these developments on the existing Great Ashby community. Access through Mendip Way will cause congestion, be dangerous and alter the existing character of this road and place pressure on Great Ashby Way, Back Lane and other thoroughfares. Without plans for a separate link road north of Stevenage, too much traffic pressure and associated pollution will unfairly impact existing residents. Plans for schools, doctor's surgeries and community facilities are absent from GA1 proposals and sketchy in proposals for GA2. The development recently completed at Martin's Wood (Chrysalis Park) is an example of another nearby development which promised a doctor's surgery which never materialised.
* Wildlife - your proposals impact green belt. The land is home to diverse wildlife, some protected such as bat species. Plans for "corridors" for wildlife are a poor replacement for the habitat lost. The site, especially GA2, features woodland - the plans are very unclear as to how, if at all, these trees will be saved - further adding to air pollution, impacting resident health and wildlife habitat.
* Character - viewed alongside wider schemes to tag estates to Stevenage fringes, the impact on the distinct character and historic significance of hamlets and villages north and east if Stevenage is significant.
* Flood risk - I note there is a flood risk associated with natural springs in the area. Are you sure assessments of such risks are robust? Just thus month MPs debated the need for reform of flood management, including imposing tougher regulations on builders.

This email confirms my objection for the plan from Croudace Homes to build 360 new homes in Great Ashby off Back Lane.
The parking and passage of cars via Bray Drive , Mendip Way and Haybluff is already a disaster. I am sure when the council and authorities have visited the site it must have been during the day as this would never have been submitted if you realise how dangerous, frustrating and downright congested it already is.
Surely you will not allow the widening of grass verges ( some of the only space available between houses and the road.
The planning of this area of Great Ashby as it is should be enough cause for investigation never mind more traffic and possible bus routes.
Refuse vans cannot access the streets neither can emergency services. Lets not remove pavement space, walking space and make the resident's life even more unsafe.

I am very much opposed to the Local Plan 2011-2031 and all developments that suggest the Roundwood site is the future of North Herts. Listed below are my reasons for such objection. I must also highlight the most recent findings of the James Parker, director for PTB Transport Planning and the flawed WBP Ltd TA report. Any amendments to the current layout of the roads Haybluff/Nevis/Mendip will be detrimental and devastating to the residents lives forever.
It is for all the reasons listed within the PTN report dated the 25/11/16 and the below points that I am very much opposed to the Roundwood development of 16/01713/1. The application raises serious concerns for myself, my family my home and surroundings.
Point one. Years ago Croudace have falsely misled an entire estate (Haybluff Drive/Mendip Way/Nevis Road/Finbracks) to purchase their dream homes knowing that their long term plan was to develop the field adjacent to their properties destroying the peace, tranquillity, view and safety that the residents brought into. If the proposal goes ahead our lives will simply never be the same again. I feel like we have been miss-sold our property and question the integrity of Croudace. I suggest the Croudace homeowners would never have brought their plots had they been aware of Croudace's long term plans. This really does feel like a clear case of false advertisement, deception and fraud.
Point two. The proposal will jeopardise the safety of the road users - pedestrians and residents. Haybluff Drive is a dead end road and my family including our pets have grown used to that. We brought our property knowing that traffic would be slight (we are shift workers) and our children (primary school age) would be safe when walking/running in and out from the property. It enables us the sleep we require for our shifts and the peace of mind knowing their safety is catered for with minimal traffic flow.
The roads leading to our property from Great Ashby Way are always congested. There is no amount of extra parking through kerb sides cut outs that would alleviate this. I am amazed at times the parking issues I face getting to and from my home. I often pause as I face the double parking to consider how on earth an emergency vehicle like a fire engine would actually get to my property if required. (I have numerous pictures of double parked vehicles). To even consider access to the new site via Haybluff Drive is preposterous. It is totally flawed and even with adaptations it would not be able to accommodate the traffic issues it already contends with. Nor the new addition of traffic feeding the new site let alone a bus route. The strain would simply be too great for such already congested roads and would exacerbate the parking problems causing unrest and bad feeling amongst the community for the rest of our lives. Not to mention the health implications this would put upon the residents with increased pollution not to mention traffic noise. All of the things we took into consideration when moving out of London to remedy.
The impact this proposal would have on the community is so negative by signing up it would cause civil unrest in Haybluff Drive/Nevis Road /Mendip Way and the surrounding area forever. Parking issues/anti-social behaviour and potential criminal damage are expected as the residents will have to result in managing the parking issues themselves. The impact this would then put on an already stretched Police Force would simply be unmanageable. Let alone the friction it would cause on a peaceful and harmonious estate it simply is unimaginable.
The disruption the construction traffic will cause is not even worth thinking about - an absolute nightmare. The roads would not be able to cope with the demands the construction traffic would impose nor the reduction in safety for our children. The constant noise from the site will impact on our sanity. Devastating. This will disrupting the lives of the residents for years. I cannot emphasise the bad feeling that this change will result in. Both towards the Council for not listening to its resident whom it has a duty of care to and obviously toward Candace who it trusted. There are many resident unable to make their feelings known or even voice them on an inadequate setting a such as this. Many are not computer literate and many too proud to be able to tell you their feelings on a public forum regarding the proposal and the stress and it is causing.
Point three. The site proposed is within the green belt. Classed as such to stop developments exactly like this one. Destroying the homes of many forms of trees shrub and wildlife in addition to significantly impacting on the visual aspect of the area. The essential characteristics of the views from all the roads from Great Ashby Way through to Haybluff Drive is its openness. Its sense of permanence and countryside will be lost forever. The homeowners bought into this upon their initial purchase. How will they be compensated for such a loss? How will you compensate or quantify the future wildlife and generations in the continued destruction of the Green belt for the purposes of unnecessary development. It is reckless and should be totally discouraged. There are many other areas within Hertfordshire that should be considered and whose residents would welcome a development that are not in Green Belt land why sign up to destroy this land that is sacred to us? We are now out of the EU and the demand for housing has expeditiously reduced. We moved to Haybluff to get away from London we do not want another London in a sleepy semi-rural Hertfordshire estate. My family take a keen interest in wildlife and on many occasions I have seen and witnessed many wonderful and sometimes and endangered species cross into Bray Drive and surrounding areas including the development over the years. This has included Badgers, foxes, hares, moles, hedgehogs, various mice, various deer, frogs, toads, newts, grass snakes, lizards and even bats. We can't continue to destroy their habitats. If the development continues a crime report will undoubtedly be recorded in regards to this.
Point four. The infrastructure requirements for the proposal need to be considered - facilities such as a school; doctor's surgery and a pharmacy must be incorporated. The existing school in Great Ashby is already oversubscribed with the Head teacher saying that the next intake will be only those with siblings and within 200 metres of it. The proposal would need to be self-sufficient and have these facilities incorporated into it. Those in Great Ashby simply could not cope with additional demands. The local GPs are already over-subscribed and obtaining an appointment comes with ludicrous waiting times. These items and a re-evaluation to the access points in and out of the proposal site need to be re-thought before it could even be considered. Access to and from the A1M would need to be included to prevent the major disruption it would bring to Haybluff Drive through to Great Ashby Way and the already exhausted Calder Way. The site should not be linked to the existing estate. The A1M even with its recent alterations would also need to be reconsidered. Junction 7 through to 8 is always at a standstill during peak times. The proposal will only add to this already commuting nightmare. In regards to schools it appears that the parents of the current children in place have not been told that there is a likelihood that their younger children may now not be allowed to attend the same school as their older siblings due to the over subscription. My partner and I are planning for our third child and would not be able to cope with two school runs. I would suggest every member of the school should be included and consulted in this proposal in fairness as it will affect them greatly. This would run into thousands of additional objections.
Point five. The planning application has been done under handed with little notice and a faulty electronic registering system. Giving residents with objections no time to do so on a faulty software system. Constant logging in and server issues. Let alone the initial letter was sent out on the 13/7/16 giving only 21 days to respond. Nor any movement on this deadline due to the technical issues. The residents have literally been left to fend for themselves against a multi-million pound development company. Where is the support of NHDC during such a crucial time? Albeit through a faulty consultation database. I would suggest a civil court will side strongly with the residents in regards to this.
Point six. Is the adverse effect the development will have on the residential amenity of the neighbours. The level of traffic noise that passes my front door is minimal (dead end road/Haybluff Drive. The proposal indicates our road to be one of the two main access points into to the development. To go from one extreme to the other is too significant, too life changing this change simply cannot go ahead. We never signed up for this drastic vision. We never would. I would never have invested hundreds of thousands of pounds of my hard earned money to buy a property that is surrounded by traffic leading to an additional estate with a parking nightmare upon my return from my daily commute. It appears every single resident of the existing estate and Great Ashby is against this proposal. Surely this must raise alarm bells in the planning authority? Where is the democracy here?
NHDC must support the community and listen to its community and oppose this proposal. The disruption the proposal will cause to our daily lives is unimaginable and words can't describe how stress inducing. The thought of trying to get on and off of our driveway will be a daily challenge - reversing onto a main road that would be so congested with parked cars whilst negotiating the new passing heavy traffic and the pollution filled buses. This development simply cannot go ahead. It would adversely affect highway safety and the convenience of existing road users and pedestrians. We keep our windows open due to our children's health and the introduction of constant traffic will force us to cease doing this. It is absolutely awful to think of how much pain Croudace could potential cause us. We did not sign up to this, our property is our future, the future for our children and we need to safeguard this. I feel helpless to this company and need NHDC to support its residents and fight back against this unrealistic vision.
Point seven. Great Ashby is already over-developed of Great Ashby to add the proposal on to this through the eradication of Green Belt land is unacceptable and unneccesary especially after the EU exit. In fact there could easily be empty houses or drastically reduced plots not selling which will causing a knock on effect to the community and wealth of the area. The open aspect of the Green Belt land must remain. We cannot continue to develop on an already over-subscribed area. The site suggested is a flood plain - this will force water into the existing estate causing devastating effects. Sewerage and items such like will need to be considered. It does amaze me when we cannot even get BT infinity to our property yet NHDC will consider such a proposal and think it would go un-noticed and without a protests and compensation claims. NHDC need to develop their existing estates - rebuilding the playgrounds that have fallen into disrepair and nurture the grass, hedges and foliage. Improve the parking facilities and benefit the residents that contribute to its council tax rather than taking what enjoyment they have. We would like to say we would move immediately if this proposal went ahead but having invested in a 10 year fixed rate mortgage we would have massive penalty costs that would affect us for the rest of our lives.
Point eight. The loss of existing views from my and the neighbouring properties which would adversely affect the residential amenity of the neighbouring owners. From looking at the proposals where my family currently look out into a beautiful field and watch the sunrise or sun set I will now look at a roundabout. Where my family look out of their window and see dense trees I will now see a bus.
Please imagine for a second the noise and pollution of thousands of vehicles of various sizes slowing down from speed outside my house as they use the proposed roundabout to then accelerating at speed along my road. Does anyone realise the plumes of smoke that churns outs in these circumstances? Harmful smoke that my family and children will have no option but to breathe all day every day and night. Exactly why many residents left London for Hertfordshire was due to the evidenced high quantity of Carbon emissions. The proposals would increase this in the road to a ridicules level in comparison. The houses are not set back like as in Great Ashby Way. As mentioned previously both my partner and many people in the street work shifts so we sleep during the day. In the summer we need the windows open. We will not be allowed to do this under the proposals. It will be devastating in both pollution and noise.
Point nine. The reduction in pavement and grass verges in the proposal with have a detrimental effect on dog walkers, wheelchair users and those with children in buggies and the such like. Thus reducing the safety for pedestrians. Again you cannot sell a plot to residents here and then move the goalposts digging up the front of their house because it suits their new agenda and simply disrespect the old customers. It is not moral nor ethical and it will be devastating to their reputation as a company. The Great Ashby community will come together to protect its future and forewarn future Croudace customers from making the same mistakes.
Point ten. Headlines already being shouted out against NHDC and Coudace via FACEBOOK and other media.
"Buy a dream home from Croudace and in 10 years you could have a toxic bus route running through what was the front of your house"
"Croudace in court for breach of contract and false advertising"
"HCMC in bed with Coudace"
"New 'Rat run' destroying community spirit in Great Ashby"
"Hertfordshire's elected leaders shamed for allowing reckless development to go ahead against wishes of the community.
"Croudace reputation in ruins, value plummets amid scandal"
"Child killed in RTC after HCMC warned over opening dead end road"
NHDC please review this proposal and object for all the reasons listed. It would be the right choice to make for the good of Great Ashby.

I wish to make the following representations in response to the Submission Draft Local Plan.

The whole plan is "unsound" because it is fundamentally flawed in a number of ways:
* The supposedly objective assessment of housing need is based simply on projections produced by the Office of National Statistics. No attempt has been made to validate these against past trends. In fact they would require that houses are built in North Herts at a greater rate than has ever happened in the past. Since the plan is for the period from 2011 to 2031 a quarter of the plan period has already happened. During that time the rate of development has been less than half that projected for the plan period as a whole.
* The housing target has not been influenced by the need to limit or avoid building on green belt land. The government has said that assessed need does not, on its own, represent a case for building on green belt land, but that is exactly what the plan argues.
* The mechanism that has been used for identifying sites is flawed. The Council simply asked land owners or developers to suggest sites that they would like to develop (at least one major site has been put forward by a developer who does not own the site concerned). There has been no attempt to identify sites that would be suitable for meeting housing need whilst meeting community and sustainability requirements. The result is that housing is proposed in the locations that suit the developers rather than those that provide the best solution for the community.
* The plan includes inadequate provisions to would ensure that brown field sites will be developed first with green field and green belt sites only following later if the demand is shown to exist.
* The traffic impact assessment is totally inadequate. The plan relies on an assessment that covers Stevenage, Hitchin and most of Letchworth and Baldock, together with another that covers Royston. The largest development proposed at Baldock is beyond the edge of the area covered by the traffic model. In addition whilst the effects of Stevenage and Welwyn Hatfield are considered, Central Bedfordshire and the proposed developments there are completely ignored. The supporting report sets an absurdly high threshold for congestion, only regarding junctions as congested if they will have "more than 100" vehicles queuing at the end of the peak hour. The proposed mitigation measures fail to identify the extent to which the problem will be improved and the proposals appear to take no account of traffic diversion to rural or residential roads.
The second level of objection is to the flaws in the proposals for individual sites:
1. GA2 - Tilekiln
* The Green Belt boundary proposed around this development is unsuitable in that it does not follow any clearly defined natural features. For most of its length if follows a footpath or a poorly defined field boundary. The strange shape of the site relates to land ownership rather than any natural feature and demonstrated that this is not a suitable boundary.
* Access to the site from Great Ashby is restricted to a narrow path through a wood land beneath powerlines.
* The site is proposed as the location for a school, but placing a school right on the edge of a settlement in this way will ensure that many children are brought by car.
* The development will clearly relate to Stevenage (despite being in North Herts) yet is remote from any of the town's facilities and will encourage longer car journeys to shops, secondary schools and leisure facilities.
2. GA1 - Roundwood
* Access to the site is unsatisfactory, requiring measures to prevent parking on roads in Great Ashby that are outside the site.
3. NS1 - North Stevenage
* The Green Belt boundary proposed around this development is unsuitable in that it does not follow any clearly defined natural features. For much of its length it is in the middle of a field.
* The site will clearly result in coalescence of Graveley with Stevenage. The Council claims that Green Belts only exist to prevent coalescence of towns with other towns, not with villages but a recent appeal decision by the Secretary of State at Sawston in Cambridgeshire makes it clear that avoidance of coalescence of with a village is one of the objectives of the Green Belt.
* In addition it appears that access issues may not have been adequately considered.
4. WE1 - Weston
* Access to the Hitchin Road site needs to be from Hitchin Road and not from The Snipe.
*There is no pavement along a section of Hitchin Road that residents in the new development would need to use to get to the school, the shop and other village facilities. Any development here should require this to be addressed.
5. BA1 - Baldock
* The traffic assessments do not identify what would be required to make the large site north east of Baldock achievable.
* The land is admitted to "make a significant contribution to the Green Belt purposes".
* The site will clearly result in coalescence of Bygrave with Baldock. The Council claims that Green Belts only exist to prevent coalescence of towns with other towns, not with villages but a recent appeal decision by the Secretary of State at Sawston in Cambridgeshire makes it clear that avoidance of coalescence of with a village is one of the objectives of the Green Belt.
* The National Planning Policy Framework requires that, for proposals of this sort, infrastructure should be planned at the same time as the Local Plan is prepared but there are no details of this in the plan.
* If built the proposed road linking the A505 with the A507 north of Baldock would have inevitably see use as a Baldock eastern by pass. Its specification and construction would need to reflect this use which would require placing significant parts of the road in a cutting to avoid unacceptable impacts on both the urban area and the adjacent countryside.

I object to the building of the Roundwood development for the following reasons::

SAFETY

Roads - the roads are busy during peak times with cars parked on both sides of the road. I have a shared driveway and garage which I always use. Coming out of the driveway onto the road is already dangerous with cars parked right up to the driveway and obscuring my view of oncoming traffic. Because cars are parked so close on either side I often need to do a 3 point turn just to get onto the road. With the new development there will be fewer parking spaces and more traffic, The road will be more dangerous. I have watched emergency services many times travel down Mendip Way and it takes much longer than it should because of the number of cars on the road and the way in which they are parked.

Paths - The landscaping of the street will change. The paths will be eliminated in order to widen the road. There are several places in Great Ashby where it is difficult for pedestrians to walk safely because of the lack of a pathway. It will not be safe for people to walk along Mendip way if there are areas with little or no path. It will be difficult for people to walk with young children and pushchairs and for those who are physically disabled or visually impaired.

DISTURBANCE

How long will it take to widen the road? Where will people park their cars? Will my front garden be disturbed? Will I have safe access to my house when the work is being carried out? Will I be able to access my driveway without restrictions? How much noise will there be? How much pollution will there be?

I am also concerned about the loss of privacy when the pathway is gone and I worry that once the work has been done people will walk on my front garden if there is nowhere else for them to walk safely. The addition of a bus service in operation will add to the noise, road congestion and loss of privacy.

ROAD ACCESS

There will simply be too much traffic on one stretch of road. Road works or severe bad weather will leave Great Ashby gridlocked.

NATURE CONSERVATION

Many trees, plants and wildlife including deer will be lost

I object to North Herts District Council's Local Plan 2011 - 2031 as follows.
I object to NS1, GA1and GA2 proposed housing for Stevenage expansion into Hertfordshire Green Belt; EL1,EL2 and EL3 proposed housing for Luton overspill in to Hertfordshire Green Belt; BA1 proposed near doubling of the town of Baldock into Green Belt land; HT1 proposed incursion into Green Belt bringing Hitchin within a stone's throw of Letchworth. It is against Government policy to build on Green belt land unless "very special circumstances" pertain (see Appendix 1). Nowhere in the Local Plan are any "very special circumstance" identified. The Green Belt was expressly put into place to curb urban sprawl. The siting of these proposed developments, mostly adjoining already existing estates is typical of the urban sprawl long discredited by town planners for its poor environmental impact and weakening of community. Several hitherto distinct village communities such as Cockernhoe, Gravely and Bygrave will be either absorbed. The Green belt promotes physical and mental health by providing recreational space. It is vital for biodiversity, especially when 60% of British wild species are in decline. Up to the present, NHDC has a good record of management of the Green belt. In its Biodiversity Action Plan of 2005 it pledged to protect it (see Appendix 2). This measure, having had no formal modifications since, is deemed to be still in force. Therefore I question the legality of NHDC's proposed flagrant disregard of it.
The site LG1 is ancient cultivated land dating back to medieval times and probably far beyond. Its ditches, banks and hedges are artefacts of early agricultural systems of archaeological significance. There are a number of pollarded oak trees estimated to be over four centuries old. These features carry their own biodiversity which has evolved over the same time-span. The richness of biodiversity is also the result of soil diversity, generated by the particular mix of sand, gravel, chalk and boulder clay laid 500,000 years ago in the last glaciations and known to geologists as 'The Letchworth Gravels'. NHDC has played its part too, cutting down the use of agri-chemicals and encouraging wide field margins. 114 bird species have been recorded, 28 of which are endangered, together with Great Crested Newt, Brown Hare, Common Toad, Polecat and 3 rare butterfly species (see Appendix 3). There is a House Sparrow roost of over 300 birds, the biggest in the county which is now under consideration for a designation of protected status. There is in increasing currency an idea that land lost to the Green Belt can be balanced by new Green belt designation elsewhere. Quite apart from the fact that there is no spare land in North Herts for such new designation, an eco-system such as that of LG1 cannot be moved as its centuries of evolution has been specific to that site.

I object to site LG1 because of the threat it poses to the unique heritage of Letchworth. This heritage is that of the world's first garden city, embodying influential principles of town planning and social welfare. Proximity to the open countryside was one of them, to which end the founding father, Ebenezer Howard, proposed to limit the population to 32,000 (thereby limiting the footprint of the town) (see Appendix 4). He further stated nowhere on the urban boundary should be more than 15 minutes walk from the town centre. Such principles have already been infringed but this is no reason to abandon the spirit of them; there is still a heritage to be preserved if tourists and visiting students of town-planning from all over the world are not to be disappointed. Another principle was the town should be self-sustaining, in the sense that the population would work locally, so housing and industry were carefully balanced. Rather than use the opportunity to restore this balance, the Local Plan proposes to upset it further. With the increase in population generated by LG1, plus the change of use from industrial to residential of many of the smaller sites in the town under the Plan, the percentage of residents employed locally will sharply decrease. Letchworth will become predominantly a dormitory town with all the weakening of community that entails. The increase in commuter numbers will cause insuperable problems for road infrastructure as Letchworth's narrow roads were designed for low car use. In a self-sustaining town everybody could walk to work or school. The crucial routes from LG1 into the town centre and station are already bottlenecks: narrow roads lined with grass verges and specimen trees, some rare, which cannot be removed for road widening without completely destroying the distinctive garden city ambience.

I object to site LG1 because of the circumstances of its proposed sale by the owners. The owners, Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation, propose to abdicate its responsibilities to protect and preserve the site. The Foundation was set up by Parliament in 1993 to continue the town's development by Ebenezer Howard's the principles, of which the Green Belt was one - the world's first Green Belt. The sale of this land is a betrayal of principle by those whom Parliament has charged to be its protector. The sale of the land could be (and should be) open to legal challenge.

I wish to object to the development site LG6. This land was compulsorily purchased by Letchworth Urban District Council as part of the Jackman Estate land. The Inspector at the time stipulated that it should be left as a Garden City-style green space. NHDC now wants to forget this decision, together with its own Biodiversity Action Plan (2005) which identified the same piece of land as an Urban Wildlife Site to be protected.
I wish to oppose the LG10 which would nearly double the number of households using Croft Lane, part of Norton old village. The pond at Norton is a breeding area for toads and other species which make their way to the pond inevitably crossing local roads especially Croft Lane. Doubling of the traffic would risk wiping them out.

Appendix 1

Extract from Hansard 15.7.2016
Green-belt Land
Next


Share this debate
18 July 2016
Volume 613
* Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Share this contribution
16. What his Department's policy is on the building of houses on green-belt land. [905899]
* The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)

Share this contribution
The Government are committed to the strong protection and enhancement of green-belt land. Within the green belt, most new building is inappropriate and should be refused planning permission except in very special circumstances.
* Philip Davies


Share this contribution
I welcome the Minister to his post, although I am sure he is disappointed to no longer be my Whip.
My constituents in Burley-in-Wharfedale, and other villages such as Baildon and Eldwick, to name but a few, are facing planning proposals for green-belt land, with 500 houses proposed for Burley-in-Wharfedale alone. Surely the whole point of the green belt is that it should not be subject to housing, and particularly not until all brownfield sites in the district have been built on. My constituents do not trust Bradford council to look after their interests, so they look to the Government to protect them. What can my hon. Friend do to protect their interests and stop that building on the green belt?
* Gavin Barwell

Share this contribution
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and wish his new Whip the best of luck.
If he looks through the national planning policy framework, he will see a clear description of what development is appropriate on the green belt, and a strong presumption that inappropriate development is harmful and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
* Mr Speaker

Share this contribution
The Whip will certainly need to be a natural optimist.

Appendix 2

North Hertfordshire District Council Biodiversity Action Plan (2005)
Foreword
Diverse rural and urban landscapes, their integral habitats and wildlife, still make North Hertfordshire a very special place in which to live and work. However we should not become complacent, for all is not well. Many changes, some quite dramatic and others very subtle, continue to degrade local habitats, reduce the diversity of wildlife and threaten the qualities of our surroundings.
The importance that your Council places upon the environment that we share, not least with many important facets of wildlife that indicate its health, is clearly outlined within its corporate vision. Its priorities promote conservation of our historic towns and rural settlements together with protection of the countryside.
In the wake of national and international concerns about environmental degradations together with loss of biodiversity, including the tenet to 'think globally, act locally', the Council initiated measures to effect positive local conservation to both habitats and species. Detailed studies and correlation of holdings of data have facilitated a timely overview that elucidates the ranges and status of the District's wildlife and wild places, and have facilitated production of this, our very own Local Biodiversity Action Plan.
With policies and evolving programmes towards effective conservation of the environment we share, the North Hertfordshire Bio-diversity Action Plan meets criteria of the Council's vision and priorities. However, these can only be really workable if each and everyone of us share in the many challenges and commitments required to ensure appropriate care for our surroundings, whether it be in town or countryside
Your Council will lead these challenges but there will be opportunity for all of us to be involved, not least toward education at all levels, joining partnerships and actively supporting the care that our urban and rural countryside needs and deserves.
Local Actions make Global Changes
Leader North Hertfordshire District Council
Councillor F.J. Smith

Appendix 3
BIODIVERSITY OF SITE LG1
Red-listed species
(Red -listed species have the highest conservation priority. In addition, where indicated SAP, some are subject to national Species Action Plans )

Skylark (SAP)
Lesser Redpoll
Common Linnet (SAP)
Cuckoo
Corn Bunting (SAP)
Yellowhammer (SAP)
Reed Bunting (SAP)
Yellow wagtail
House Sparrow
Grey Partridge (SAP)
Dunnock
Common Bullfinch (SAP)
European Turtle Dove (SAP)
Common Starling
Song Thrush (SAP)
Northern Lapwing (SAP)
Woodcock
Grasshopper Warbler
Fieldfare Redwing
Mistle Thrush
Nightingale
Whinchat
Grey Wagtail
Bittern
Red Kite

A further 20 or so species found on the site are amber-listed: unfavourable status in Europe

Other red-listed fauna found on Local Plan site LG1
Brown Hare (SAP)
West European Hedgehog
Polecat
Common Toad
Great Crested Newt (SAP)
Small Heath butterfly
Small Blue butterfly
Wall butterfly

INFORMATION: Brian Sawford: NHDC Countryside Officer (Retd), Curator of Natural History for North Herts Museums Service (Retd).
:Trevor James: Curator of Natural History for North Herts Museums Service (Retd), Director of Herts Biological Records Centre (Retd).
Appendix 4

GARDEN CITIES OF TO-MORROW
Ebenezer Howard
Garden Cities of To-Morrow (London, 1902. Reprinted, edited with a Preface by F. J. Osborn and an Introductory Essay by Lewis Mumford. (London: Faber and Faber, [1946]):50-57, 138- 147.

Let me here introduce a very rough diagram, representing, as I conceive, the true principle on which all towns should grow, Garden City has, we will suppose, grown until it has reached a population of 32,000. How shall it grow? How shall it provide for the needs of others who will be attracted by its numerous advantages? Shall it build on the zone of agricultural land which is around it, and thus for ever destroy its right to be called a 'Garden City'? Surely not. This disastrous result would indeed take place if the land around the town were, as is the land around our present cities, owned by private individuals anxious to make a profit out of it. For then, as the town filled up, the agricultural land would become 'ripe' for building purposes, and the beauty and healthfulness of the town would be quickly destroyed. But the land around Garden City is, fortunately, not in the hands of private individuals: it is in the hands of the people: and is to be administered, not in the supposed interests of the few, but in the real interests of the whole community.

We object to GA1, GA2 and WE1 because of the encroachment on the Green Belt land and resultant traffic problems which are already hazardous. The infrastructure is not there to support said expansion in these areas.

Thank you for sharing my concerns and objections to these plans to the council.

I would like to register my concerns with the proposals to the expansion of Great Ashby - GA1 & GA2 and also the proposal for Weston - WE1.

As you surely know, the area around Great Ashby is Green Belt land which has already been breached by the previous development of Great Ashby. With further expansion planned, what really is the point of having a Green Belt?! The traffic along the road is already far higher and at peak times is at capacity for what the narrow lane between Weston and Great Ashby can take. Noticeable traffic levels have already impacted the surrounding villages as well as other undesirable consequences.

WE1 is another area for concern as the proposal for number of houses is far higher than the identified need of 14. No reason seems to have been given for this and yet again creates more traffic which stretches the facilities of the village further. Once again, the propose site is also on Green Belt land which causes concern as to where or when the development will actually stop as clear boundaries previously put in place are not being adhered to.

With the population of the area significantly increasing, we have seen a rise in trespassing across land including scrambler motorbikes, etc on footpaths and going across private land. At the very least, I would like to see assistance to land owners in helping combat this adverse effect of expanding the village and nearby areas, with actual measures put in place.

Thank you for conveying my concerns and objections to these plans to the council.

I would just like to register my objection to the GA1 and GA2 developments.

Whilst I do appreciate that NHDC must build new houses, and I myself would not have a house if Great Ashby had not been built, I feel that Great Ashby is now full.
There are constant issues with parking and access and Great Ashby Way is a road that never sleeps. The traffic levels are high already and inconsiderate speeding and parking make the side roads as well as Gt Ashby Way dangerous at times. Virtually every evening if there was a fire down one of the side streets the fire brigade would not get through. More cars and traffic simply cannot be absorbed in the current roads.
The local primary school is overflowing, and the residents are registered with doctors all around Stevenage. When Great Ashby was first proposed, there were plans for a doctors surgery on the development, but that has never materialised. It is desperately needed. The secondary schools in Stevenage are already at capacity, where are all the new families attracted to the area by the new houses going to get all the services from they require?
My other concern is the use of green belt land. There are other brown belt sites that should be used first. Green belt land by its own description is protected and should stay green.
The proposed development of GA2 is just too big, and I urge you to reconsider the implications it would have.

I am writing to place my objection about the GA2 development on land to the North of Great Ashby, Herts.

We urge North Hertfordshire District Council to remove GA1 and GA2 from the list of allocated sites for development in North Stevenage and consider the implications to all those involved/affected.

Objections/reasons against GA1/GA2 include:

Greenbelt is precious and should not be developed - building on these sites contravene protected status and this precedence must not be set. Greenbelt areas are important to prevent urban sprawl, stop towns from merging, protect the countryside and promote urban regeneration. The density of the proposed housing is of city nature and not suited to Greenbelt countryside, I believe it is not inline with the 2007 Urban design assessment report commissioned by NHDC.

The land in GA2 houses a rich and diverse amount of wildlife including endangered red kites, barn owls, bats and the currently protected badger. NHDC have a DUTY to conserve the biodiversity of this area. The muntjac deer population has already seriously decreased since Great Ashby was built. Further development would be catastrophic to our wildlife. GA2 would totally encompass ancient woodland and a natural spring, building in this area would destroy valuable wildlife habitats.

A development of this magnitude would be visibly intrusive and harm the character and appearance of an area of outstanding beauty scattered with listed buildings and villages, such as Graveley. This area is used and enjoyed by many people, footpaths and bridleways crossing the proposed sites GA1 & GA2 form part of the historic Hertfordshire way and are frequented by many ramblers, horse riders and dog walkers.

The infrastructure is not suitable for another 2000 homes. Traffic through Great Ashby is already at capacity and congested with many parked cars and can be quite dangerous at peak times.

Doctors surgeries in North Stevenage are struggling with the extra volume of patients already.

Proposed developments are remote from the retail and commercial centres of Stevenage and Hitchin, many businesses are already struggling in Stevenage and a number of shops have closed in the town centre. Extra housing would put severe pressure on an already lack of employment. For commuters, trains are already at full capacity during peak times and the A1 is congested.

Socially affordable housing is not mentioned within the proposals, surely local councils should be considering the needs of people already living in Stevenage & the huge waiting lists .

We understand that housing is needed but feel it would be more sensible to build a completely new settlement/garden city somewhere with reasonable transport links, but away from any towns or villages and NOT at the loss of important Green Belt or woodland. A new settlement that over time can grow to meet the needs of the people with the correct infrastructure designed into it from the beginning and would create thousands of jobs and new employment. We also urge local councils and government to build on brown field sites as an alternative and to look at the many thousands of boarded up council homes that lay dormant across the UK.

I am writing to object to the above mentioned plan on the basis that the local infrastructure can not cope with the existing number of residents and adding more people would be totally ridiculous. The local roads are congested and hazardous and could not cope with the additional traffic the new development would put on them. When we bought our property we were promised a tree lined avenue. The proposal to rip out our trees and put a bus route through a road that takes 10 minutes to exit due to the cars parked either side of the road is crazy. I understand the need for more housing but the proposed entry roads are truly ridiculous to consider. The proposal to create car parking spaces in the road is also not a solution to the long term increase in traffic as the traffic surveys were done during the middle of the day when residents were at work and was therefore not a true representation of the parking nightmare that is Mendip Way. Please please do not make a decision unless you yourself have driven up these roads.

I would like to raise my concerns about the proposed developments at Great Ashby (GA1 and GA2) and the proposed site at Weston (WE1).

Regarding GA1 and GA2, I am most concerned about the readiness once again to build large developments on designated Green Belt land. As you will be aware, this was breached many years ago to allow the Great Ashby site to be built. Concerns were raised at the time about the Green Belt being broached and now it is planned to build further into it once again. This lack of regard for safeguarding areas of Green Belt will inevitably lead to the undesirable consequence of coalescence of villages with towns. Weston feels at threat in this regard as Stevenage grows ever closer.

You will also be aware of the problem of traffic congestion at peak times on the North Herts trunk road network. This leads to further congestion in the local towns and our country roads. With the extra houses being built on those sites, the traffic will become an even more serious problem and indeed a hazard.

With regard to the designated site in Weston, WE1, there was identified a need for 14 affordable houses and a site for 25 houses was accordingly planned on the site. In the Local Housing Plan the number of proposed houses has now increased significantly to 40 houses without apparent reason.. this is once again broaching the Green Belt and extending the village boundary further still and therefore causes concern.

Thank you for conveying my concerns and objections to these plans to the council.

I would like to raise my concerns about the proposed developments at Great Ashby (GA1 and GA2) and also the proposed site at Weston (WE1).

Regarding GA1 and GA2, I am most concerned about the readiness once again to build large developments on designated Green Belt land. As you will be aware, this was breached many years ago to allow the Great Ashby site to be built. Concerns were raised at the time about the Green Belt being broached and now it is planned to build further into it once again. This lack of regard for safeguarding areas of Green Belt will inevitably lead to the undesirable consequence of coalescence of villages with towns. Weston feels at threat in this regard as Stevenage grows ever closer.

You will also be aware of the problem of traffic congestion at peak times on the North Herts trunk road network. This leads to further congestion in the local towns and our country roads. With the extra houses being built on those sites, the traffic will become an even more serious problem and indeed a hazard.

With regard to the designated site in Weston, WE1, there was identified a need for 14 affordable houses and a site for 25 houses was accordingly planned on the site. In the Local Housing Plan the number of proposed houses has now increased significantly to 40 houses without apparent reason.. this is once again broaching the Green Belt and extending the village boundary further still and therefore causes concern.

Thank you for conveying my concerns and objections to these plans to the council.

I am writing to lodge my objection to the above planned development.

Having registered with the on-line consultation system, I found it very confusing to use, and hence am lodging my objection directly here rather than through that website. Really, you couldn't have made it any harder for people to share their views.

My objections are on the following grounds:

1. There is not enough space to allow vehicular access to the proposed new development through existing local routes. I do not believe a thorough survey of the site has been carried out during 'key' times (i.e. 06:00-09:00 or 15:00-19:00), when parked cars almost always block the roads. These roads are already dangerous, and the removal/shrinking of the verges will make them more so.

2. The parking calculations for the residents of Bray Drive, Mendip Way and Haybluff Drive need to be reconsidered to factor in the actual number of residents in these dwellings, which are growing steadily into House of Multiple Occupancy. Hence the number of vehicles parking here will only increase.

3. It will be impossible for any public service transport vehicle to get through these roads (busses, or emergency vehicles) due to the number of double-parked cars.

4. The proposed closure of Back Lane will result in even more traffic using local routes within Great Ashby, which will only add to the existing traffic issues.

5. There is only one major route into/out of Great Ashby - that is Great Ashby Way, and traffic here during peak times is already burdensome on local residents. Great Ashby Way is also rarely gritted during bad weather, which further adds to traffic congestion.

6. All local schools are already oversubscribed - so where will the young people moving into these houses be educated?

7. Likewise, what plans are there to increase health facilities (GP Surgery?) for the new residents?

8. The current Great Ashby site was built with an allocation of 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling, which will be reduced if spaces along the access roads are reduced.

9. The development will be on green belt land - why is this necessary when there are plenty of brown field sites available in Stevenage?

Many thanks for your time.

I am writing to object to the proposals of GA1 and GA2. I walk my dogs everyday on this beautiful land and would be devastated if it were to be destroyed for housing. The reason that we moved to Great Ashby was to be close to the beautiful woodland/farmland and be part of a nice, safe community for ourselves and our children.

Green Belt Land - The proposed development is on Green Belt land and as such is an inappropriate development. In your e-mail dated 19/4/2016 entitled 'pre-Application Advice' to Croudace you wrote 'As you know the site is located in the Metropolitan Green Belt and as such under current local and national planning policy I am unable to support the principle of development at this site. Housing represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt and despite the Council's absence of a five year land supply of deliverable housing sites 'housing need' is not in my view in of itself a very special circumstance which would pursued the Council to grant planning permission in advance of further progress with the current Local Plan (2011-2031).'

This stance is reinforced by the attached letter from Brandon Lewis, Minister of State for Housing and Planning dated 7/6/2016.

In light of this reaffirmation of the Government's strong stance against development of Green Belt 'unless exceptional circumstance exists and with the support of local people' which this proposed site clearly do not have, I disagree with your subsequent statement in that e-mail that following approval of the Local Plan and release of this site from Green Belt, subject to there being no unresolved technical planning issues, planning officers would be able in principle to support the application.


I appreciate that there is a shortage of housing, but does not think we should compromise safety of current Great Ashby residents to allow this inappropriate access arrangements as per the application. This is absolutely ludicrous to even think that the roads (Bray Drive, Mendip Way and Haybluff Drive) will cope with this small change to the existing roads to allow for more vehicles!

1. Section 2.1.7: Promises "safe and easy access for all sections of the community, including people with disabilities, the infirm and parents of young children" - I question how removing the grass verges and trees and widening the roads in Bray Drive, Mendip Way and Haybluff Drive is complying with this statement? - By removing the verges, not only do you allow the developer to take out the grass, but the environmental impact of losing what few trees have been planted, will have an adverse impact on the current ecosystem.
There is absolutely no way that a child walking to school can pass a parent with a double buggy safely without stepping in the road, if there are no grass verges. Keeping in mind that this is the main access to the current Great Ashby residents; and is also proposed to be the main access for the Roundwood development - this is totally unsafe and should not be allowed as an access route to this development. - Parked cars will be so closed to the boundaries of houses. If you walk with your children (I have seen parents walking with 4 children) and someone open the door of a parked car, a child (who might be on a scooter, or bicycle, or just walking) or adult can get seriously injured. Great Ashby's roads are already heavily filled with traffic and parked cars, this will be untenable if more houses are to be built!
Schooling and GP Facilities: In its conclusion to its Planning Application, Croudace describes the proposed development as being 'in a sustainable location, with good access to a range of facilities (11.5)'. This is incorrect. Local primary schools within walking distance are already heavily oversubscribed, with children having to travel to other schools within Stevenage and the surrounding villages. Also there is no secondary school provision within Great Ashby, and the current draft local plan does not indicate a provision of one.

Likewise despite having been established for over 15 years, Great Ashby still does not have its own GP surgery, again requiring existing residents to travel across Stevenage to other GP surgeries or to the Lister Hospital.

It is very concerning that the above errors relating to essential infrastructure requirements have been made, particularly given the close involvement Croudace and its employees have had in the development of Great Ashby over the years and raises questions as to the integrity of the information provided in the application.

Please listen to the people who are against the proposal these are all valid reasons to refuse the application for GA1 and GA2.

I wish to object to the Roundwood (GA 1) planning application and GA2 as part of the larger local plan due to:
1. Existing transport access is poor, via already congested residential roads (Mendip Way in Great Ashby). Large scale movements of construction traffic will not be suitable on these roads.
2. Proposals to widen Mendip Way by removing existing grass verges will reduce parking space on this road from around 100 to 55, a loss of 45 spaces. This will force traffic onto side streets (such as Nevis Road, Cheviot Way, Cotswold Drive, Snowdonia Way). These streets already have existing parking problems that will only be exacerbated with additional traffic from Mendip Way. The existing parking problems have been caused by previous planning laws allowing only 1.5 car spaces per property (now 2 cars). Also, previous planning laws allowed garage sizes to be built smaller 2.5m x 5m (vs current 3m x 7m). This directly impacts current parking congestion in Great Ashby by severely limiting the use of private garages for parking average size vehicles as they are too small.
3. Additional residential traffic from the new development will be forced onto already congested roads. Mendip Way and Great Ashby Way will be especially prone to this during morning and evening rush hours, with obvious safety implications for current residents.
4. Other smaller roads will become 'rat runs' as residential traffic moves during rush hour periods. Nevis Road and Snowdonia Way are examples.
5. Taking into account the increased traffic (both construction and eventually residential) that will be forced onto local roads, the existing public transport service will suffer at key times such as morning and evening rush hours, especially if the route is changed to include Mendip Way.
6. No consideration has been given to GA2 plans for a further 500 houses in Great Ashby. The original planned 3rd exit "link road" out of Great Ashby is very much needed.
7. The are no spaces available at local schools, with Round Diamond Primary school already turning down applications from large numbers of existing residents for places. This will lead to further traffic problems as parents are forced to drive their children to schools that are further away.
8. There do not appear to be any plans for the provision of additional amenities, such as places at doctors and dental surgeries. The Lister hospital is struggling to cope now, without all the extra residents the housing development will bring in. The Comet newspaper (11th March 2016) reported how A&E waiting time targets set by the government have not been met since emergency services were centralised at Lister following the closure of the emergency department at the QEII in Welwyn Garden City in October 2014. Adult minor injury services have been suspended twice this year at Lister's A&E due to the number of more serious cases.
9. The proposed development is not sustainable. There are no additional facilities proposed. Existing facilities are already stretched or non-existent, and will be further stretched by this proposed development.

I would like to object to the local plan, specifically the lack of justification for the excessive housing target, lack of associated infrastructure that a local plan of this size requires and further rolling back of the Green Belt (or land swaps) around the A1M towns of Stevenage, Hitchin, Baldock and Letchworth. Instead I would support that NHDC and Stevenage Borough Council deliver a sensitively designed new Garden city, to support additional and justified housing need in the area, local employment can be generated and where the local infrastructure is adequately considered and delivered.

There is an absence of justification for the excessive housing target that does not take into proper account of Green Belt constraints and in many cases. The current framework makes it very clear Green Belt boundaries should only be adjusted when very special circumstances exist, through the Local plan and with the support of local people. The need for additional housing alone does not constitute exceptional circumstances for rolling back further the green belt around the towns on the A1M corridor.
The North of Stevenage already had a large area removed from the green belt for Great Ashby as exceptional circumstances to meet Stevenage housing need during the last local plan, and now is expected to do so again. NS1, GA1 and GA2 will close the gap between Graveley and Stevenage with Weston and will fully immerse Chesfield losing the character of all villages and hamlets.
The development sites NS1 (900 dwellings), GA1 (330 dwellings), GA2 (600 dwellings) are to meet the needs of Stevenage which itself has a developing local plan for 7600 new homes during 2011 and 2031. There also plans for 600 dwellings to the East of Stevenage in East Herts local plan. This constitutes an increase of 10030 homes or 11% increase to meet the needs of Stevenage alone. This is a similar proposal to what was included in the now defunct SNAP, which indicated a relief road for a development of this size, yet this is not indicated in the local plan, and relies on funnelling traffic through existing roads not designed to cope with such an increase in traffic. All of these sites are away from the main town centre, public transport does not link these sites together so will increase car journeys and commuting outside of the town further exacerbating the daily issues on the A1M and rail network.

Please may I make the following comments to object to the plan as a resident of Graveley, therefore my comments are principally referring to site NS1 and also to some extent, GA1:

1. Destruction of Green Belt land in this instance is not justified. In towns across North Herts and Stevenage there are still many untapped brownfield sites that would benefit these locations bringing life back intro these business centres, reducing the inducement of traffic congestion through commuting into such towns/railway stations and already using a ready-built infrastructure. Locating housing in areas such as this is not convenient for rail travel being around 2 miles from Stevenage station and traffic congestion along North Road makes any linking bus journey time-consuming and unreliable. There is plenty of brown field land to the west of Stevenage that is only 1/2 a mile from Stevenage station that remains derelict yet is only a 10 minute walk from the town's station.

2. There is insufficient transport infrastructure in this area already and we have heard no proposals as to how such saturated roads can be improved to cater for such growth, caused by both the proposed housing developments and supermarket. Both the A1 J8 and North Road Junction with Graveley Road are already accident black spots and Graveley village will not cope with much higher traffic flows down Church Lane from Great Ashby. This road cannot already cope when it's used by many residents of Great Ashby in the peak periods and with very tight corners and listed buildings backing onto the road on the approaches to Graveley there are no ways it can be widened. The land take of the new sites also appears to only provide an road connection to the east and south-east placing massive stress on the Stevenage to Hitchin, Letchworth and Baldock corridors.

3. A loss of the potential to ever expand the hospital and associated facilities. Lister Hospital and its immediately adjacent sites catering for palliative care and mental health are now ( critically important to all of North and East Herts and Stevenage. There has already been huge upheaval and expense in consolidating care there and downgrading other sites such as QE2 in Welwyn Garden City and Hertford Hospitals which was justified at the time that Lister is better suited to expand. A housing scheme of such a size running right up to the hospital site will restrict what would have been a far more justified reason to threaten Green Belt land in the future.

4. Stevenage and it's immediate surrounding areas have been woefully neglectful of the history and culture that has, and still remains. EM Forster and the notion of 'Forster Country' would greatly improve the image of this area. Such swathes of blanket development with no focal point and the associated destruction of woodlands and hedgerows does undermine such efforts by a great many people in the past to increase the profile of the area as a pleasant and sustainable place to live, work and visit. The relief of the proposed area would make such a development visible from many aspects to the north of Stevenage and undermine the historical importance of sites such as Manor Farm.

5. The density of housing that is proposed and lack of strategic infrastructure to cope is an insult to foresight and concepts of Ebenezer Howard, again another unique selling point of this area. He was an early proponent of sustainability and I would question the overall environmental credentials of this scheme.

The principal concerns that my wife and I have relate to the road communications for areas GA1 & GA2.
The plans exhibited by the developer earlier in the year for the GA1 area were totally unrealistic in the manner that traffic was to enter and exit the estate. GA1 is completely isolated in a corner bounded by two country lanes. Each of these have significant lengths where it is difficult for vehicles to pass, yet these lanes are expected to bear the traffic generated by a significant housing development. Traffic heading north will either head for Gravely or Weston, neither routes can carry the significant traffic that may be anticipated and neither villages is capable of absorbing such a flow. We already know that Hatch Lane from Weston to the North Road in Baldock is hazardous, particularly at peak periods. Cars driven by members of the family have required two replacement external mirrors and a nearside front wheel during the past three years through encountering speeding oncoming traffic.
So far as GA2 is concerned, access and egress will have to be through the streets of the existing Great Ashby area which are not designed to carry any greater traffic flow than already exists. All traffic from GA2 will have to head for Stevenage town centre before being able to access the principal north - south routes.
And yet all this invasion of greenbelt, crowding of adjacent villages and their access roads and further traffic build up in the heart of Stevenage could be avoided if the land west of Stevenage, already identified and, for some mysterious reason, held in reserve, was to be used earlier. From there would be excellent and direct access to major road and rail links.

I'm writing this email to formally object to the proposed GA1 and GA2 developments.

INFRASTRUCTURE
The roads throughout Great Ashby are already under great pressure to cope with the number of vehicles using them on a daily basis and I see no new infrastructure being proposed to cope with the additional 1000+ vehicles using the existing infrastructure on a daily basis.

SCHOOLS
There are no plans for a secondary school which is desperately needed and only a 2FE primary school. All local primary schools are currently oversubscribed and there is currently limited public transport to the nearest secondary schools.

GP SURGERY
There are no plans for a doctors surgery. An extra 900+ homes being proposed and doctors surgeries already at capacity within Stevenage. How are the extra 2000-3000 residents going to find access to health care?

EMERGENCY RESPONSE VEHICLES
Emergency response vehicles already find it difficult to access parts of Great Ashby due to vehicle obstruction.

GREEN BELT LAND
The proposed development is on Green Belt land. Land has been defined as Green Belt to prohibit urban sprawl. GA1 and GA2 should not even be considered for development as it is inappropriate use of the specified land. There are no exceptional circumstances surrounding the development of this area and the local people do not support the proposals.

I believe that this area does not have sufficient infrastructure to allow the building of so many new homes. The roads are constantly congested and in the 7 years that I have lived here this has become significantly worse.
We have no local GP. No local dentist. Children that live here are already unable to get into the local school. Secondary school provision is already not adequate.

Mendip way where the construction traffic will drive along is constantly congested already and the proposed parking bays will only make matters worse.

Great Ashby is already full to bursting and when it was planned no provision was made for homes having several cars and emergency vehicles would not be able at this present time be able to get along most streets. To build more homes will be a disaster waiting to happen.

I would like to object to the local plan with particular respect to sites NS1, GA1 and GA2

There are significant access issues with regards to GA1 and also GA2. The roads are not suitable for the level of traffic proposed to be going down these roads and with respect to the planning application for GA1 the traffic survey conducted is flawed.

Some other residents and myself have conducted a more details traffic survey which shows that the development will result in severe parking issues and potentially be dangerous due to emergency vehicles being unable to get down the road.

I am unaware of what the access points for GA2 will be but if it is through existing roads then the problem will be the same.


Both of the proposed developments are on green belt land and in NHDC email dated 19/4/2016 they stated that the sites were located in metropolitan green belt and as such they were unable to support the principle of the development."

Development on green belt land as per government policy is only supposed to be under "exceptional circumstances and with the support of the local community" which is patently not true with regards to GA1 and GA2.

Building on NS1 along with development in SBC local will result in the effective destruction of forster country which is the last remaining farmland in Stevenage Borough was the inspiration for Howards End by EM Forster and should be protected.

I thank you for taking into account my submission and would like to be informed with regards to the local plan in future.

I am logging my objection to the proposed Roundwood development by Croudace homes off Back Lane in Great Ashby Stevenage. Great Ashby has been built with the minimum of parking as most new developments seem to be. Already there is a massive parking shortage and the proposed changed to Bray Drive will only serve to compound this. Getting along Bray drive during the morning rush hour is already a significant challenge and at weekends and evenings it is even more so as everyone is home and hence there are cars parked on both sides of the street for the entire length of the road.
Equally getting out of Stevenage onto the A1 is a nightmare in the morning, there are already significant queues on Martin way leading to the roundabout. A lot of Great Ashby residents use the short cut via Weston to get onto the A1 at Baldock instead so whilst the works are going on and Back lane is closed the pressure of traffic trying to exit Stevenage will be added to massively.
There are usually significant queues along the road in Graveley too with commuters trying to get into Stevenage, too add a new set of commuters from the proposed Roundwood site tying to cross this trail of traffic to get onto the road to the A1 would just load an already loaded system significantly.
Another significant change would be the appearance of Bray drive, reducing the number of trees and green patches which we have little enough of anyway. Plus the increased traffic through Bray drive once the Roundwood site is complete would be disastrous to the existing community.

The local school is already saturated with additional aching spaces being found in every nook and cranny to accommodate the current number of students, is there a proposal as to where the children from this new development will attend school?

On a separate note, I often see deer and other wildlife on the early morning commute through Back lane, the effect of this new development on out wildlife and local ecosystems cannot be underestimated.

I consider myself a reasonably computer literate person but I have to say, trying to lodge an objection via the website has defeated me.

I have been made aware of the NHDC's Roundwood Development plan to build 930 houses on Green Belt land between Great Ashby and Weston and I would like to register my objection (and that of my partner)
My objection is primarily based on the annual East of England population growth forecast from 2011-2031 of 0.32% from the ONS. As I understand it, to accommodate this requirement would take 3750 additional houses, however 4340 houses have already been built to meet and exceed this need.

I would request that the council reconsiders this plan and also that we are added to the distribution list for any updates on this project please.

We object to the closure of the back Lane which will course more congestion through bray drive and the following roads which already have issues with parking.
We also object to building behind our house which will be destroying wild life that live in the forest and it will affect the school places in this area!