WE1 Land off Hitchin Road

I'd like to object to site WE1's inclusion in the plan on the following basis:
The development of WE1 will likely result in a dramatic increase in traffic through the village. The road through the village is the easiest route through to Stevenage and is already used extensively as a "rat run". This will only increase by adding approximately 47 families and 95 cars to the population of Weston.

The land being officially removed from the Green Belt to enable the development of WE1 sets a dangerous precedent for further development around Weston in the future and compromises the village's role (as recognized in the Green belt Survey Published in 2016, P.23-24) in preventing encroachment of development into open countryside.

Additionally, local residents have spotted slow worms on the site which have protected status. I have attached photographic evidence taken on site.

I'd like to object to site WE1's inclusion in the plan on the following basis:
The development of WE1 will likely result in a dramatic increase in traffic through the village. The safety of the village children is already of concern and this will heighten this concern.

The land being officially removed from the Green Belt to enable the development of WE1 sets a dangerous precedent for further development around Weston in the future and compromises the village's role (as recognized in the Green belt Survey Published in 2016, P.23-24) in preventing encroachment of development into open countryside.

From residents meetings and Facebook groups this development is not wanted by the village and threatens the village life many sought buying here.

Additionally, local residents have spotted slow worms on the site which have protected status. Further local residents have spotted bats and a bat survey has not been completed which is a legal requirement.

Already a proposal to build 1000 houses on the border of Weston is on the table. We could have 40 plus trucks a day through the village. We would like the green belt left as breathing space.

There are slow worms on the site, which are a protected species and we have bats either nesting or flying through that site every summer. I have not seen a mandatory bat survey carried out by the council.

Weston already faces 1,000 new homes on its border with Great Ashby and will see huge rises in construction vehicles and long term traffic. It is therefore vital that its greenbelt is left in tact to prevent the village being strangled.

The council had constantly told surveyors for new buyers that no building was planned in that area (as little as 3 years ago) therefore it would be illegal to proceed.

The residents have been continually lied to. Firstly, only certain residents received the 'housing questionnaire' and this did not contain the correct facts. It did not mention that 40% of Roundwood would be social housing and did not name all sites that could be used for housing. There has been no stipulation about what the term 'social housing' means and therefore the consultation is meaningless. Worse, however is that NHH were surveying sites outside of the local plan recently and then lied about doing so. This field (the additional 16 houses added in the latest iteration house now been added to the proposed development. It is also worth mentioning that this fake 'questionnaire' also stipulated a need for 14 social houses. The added 16 houses to the plan have nothing to do with any local social need - which is contrary to the Government framework which stipulates that there should only be development on the greenbelt if there is an 'exceptional need'.

Finally, the build up of traffic in Weston is not only going to destroy an historic village, but it is going to lead to major health and safety issues and possibly deaths on the roads of the west of Weston

I'd like to object to site WE1's inclusion in the plan on the following basis:
The development of WE1 will likely result in a dramatic increase in traffic through the village. The road through the village is the easiest route through to Stevenage and is already used extensively as a "rat run". This will only increase by adding approximately 47 families and 95 cars to the population of Weston.

The land being officially removed from the Green Belt to enable the development of WE1 sets a dangerous precedent for further development around Weston in the future and compromises the village's role (as recognized in the Green belt Survey Published in 2016, P.23-24) in preventing encroachment of development into open countryside.

Additionally, local residents have spotted slow worms on the site which have protected status. I have attached photographic evidence taken on site.

I'd like to object to site WE1's inclusion in the plan on the following basis:
The development of WE1 will likely result in a dramatic increase in traffic through the village. The road through the village is the easiest route through to Stevenage and is already used extensively as a "rat run". This will only increase by adding approximately 47 families and 95 cars to the population of Weston.

The land being officially removed from the Green Belt to enable the development of WE1 sets a dangerous precedent for further development around Weston in the future and compromises the village's role (as recognized in the Green belt Survey Published in 2016, P.23-24) in preventing encroachment of development into open countryside.

Local residents have spotted slow worms on the site which have protected status. The site is a fly through route for bats

The only bus service to and from Weston has been suspended

I'd like to object to site WE1's inclusion in the plan on the following basis:
The development of WE1 will likely result in a dramatic increase in traffic through the village. The road through the village is the easiest route through to Stevenage and is already used extensively as a "rat run". This will only increase by adding approximately 47 families and 95 cars to the population of Weston.

The land being officially removed from the Green Belt to enable the development of WE1 sets a dangerous precedent for further development around Weston in the future and compromises the village's role (as recognized in the Green belt Survey Published in 2016, P.23-24) in preventing encroachment of development into open countryside.

Additionally, local residents have spotted slow worms on the site which have protected status.

I have not see any satisfactory evidence as to why the the proposed new village envelope excludes the houses up to and including Church Lane and Weston Bury. There has been little or no discussion describing the logical and objective reasons to support where the envelope is drawn. As well as it not being fair and inclusive, I am concerned about the potential for it to reduce our access to village amenities. We are clearly in the 'confines' of the village as we are part of the existing area, we are not in an open space and we don't abut open countryside - we are next to the school so clearly relate to the main area of the village and the church is behind us too. The sign welcoming people in to the village is a few hundred metres away from us so it seems reasonable that this is defines the envelope as it is only here that open countryside begins. Finally this decision has not been duly raised in the public exhibitions and consultations regarding the proposed new local plan, which has felt very underhand by the parish council and local council alike.

Paragraph 13.340
The boundary has been drawn very tightly around the substantive part of the settlement of Weston leaving little room for future development, other than on the identified Site WE1 (40 houses). Whilst we raise objection to that allocation, it is considered that additional housing should have been considered closer to the existing built form of the village, in smaller development' rather than as one large housing estate. This could be achieved by a more sympathetic and forensic approach to the established sites in Weston, that could be included within the Development Boundary.

I object for the following reasons. Wildlife in the area will be driven out and it is a hunting ground for bats, owls, red kites, buzzards, foxes, deer including muntjacs.
The field is also home to slow worms which are a protected species.
Weston is not equipped for the rigours of constructions and it will mean lorries coming through the village from both the Great Ashby end and other routes through the village.
The pumping station can hardly cope with the current requirements and the field floods frequently when it rains.
Why not build a garden city so it can have all the amenities and infrastructure.

I am writing to express the objections to the Local Plan of my wife and myself on the following grounds:

Strategic Quality

Despite the previous pleas of all 3 local MPs, the leaders of 13 North Herts parish councils, Weston Parish Council and numerous other people, it appears that nothing has been done to take a strategic view of either housing need or housing provision. Once again, the 'plan' is based on the opportunistic availability of plots of land either already under the control of NHDC or where there are willing sellers.

Not only is this leading to hap hazard development, it is being proposed without any cogent infrastructure plan to accommodate the increased population and in total deference to strategic planning considerations set out in the NPPF (March 2012). Indeed, it is so far at odds with the goals and objectives of the NPPF that it is somewhat pointless to itemise them here.

The great shame of it is, for a county that has in the past demonstrated great foresight in its developments, this plan lacks vision at best, and at worst appears opportunistic and incompetent.

Infrastructure

Although briefly mentioned above, the complete lack of any coherent plan to accommodate the proposed increase in both population and the consequential impact on the transportation network, school places, doctors clinics, hospital capacity etc. deserves separate mention.

It is simply unacceptable that the Council that is supposed to be representing the best interest of its existing population has spent so long producing a document with such obvious shortcomings.

Furthermore, although Hertfordshire can undoubtedly accommodate additional buildings, its road and rail infrastructure is under intense pressure already. A prerequisite for any significant development should therefore be a fully costed infrastructure plan. While NHDC would probably argue that this provision is catered for after the event by Section 106 money, the opportunistic and therefore fragmented nature of this plan means that it is unlikely that any meaningful infrastructure upgrades are likely to occur.

Housing numbers

I don't think that anyone disputes the fact that more houses are required in the UK, no explanation has been provided of the way the numbers have been calculated for North Herts, or why they have fluctuated so wildly over the years.

Unless and until NHDC provide a cogent explanation of the housing numbers to the population they purport to represent, I cannot see how anyone can accept that they reflect an accurate reflection of the 'housing need'.

Green Belt

The land that is currently designated as Green Belt was so designated for a reason. And the NPPF make clear the purpose of the Green Belt and the reasons why it should be protected. Nothing in this Plan provides an acceptable explanation of the special circumstances that would justify building on Green Belt land.

Furthermore, as our representatives, it is the responsibility of the members of NHDC to protect the Green Belt on our behalf. Yet instead, you are the ones proposing its destruction!

Finally, I would like to ask NHDC why they are doing this? In the case of the Local Plan it is unclear whose interests NHDC is representing. As far as I can see there are only two possible answers. The first is the local population, yet given the extent of opposition, the lack of infrastructure planning and the violation of Green Belt land, it is not clear that NHDC are not doing this for them.

The second possibility is that they are doing it because of central Government pressure. In the past Members of the Council have both denied that this is the case and agreed that it is. However, regardless of the problems Central Government could cause the region, it is still the role of NHDC to represent the best interests of the constituents, even if that means standing against the forces of Central Government. In this case in particular, I believe we actually have a very strong case as vast amounts of the land required for building are in the Green Be
Last time NHDC consulted on the Local Plan you received around 800 responses. However the current version does not appear to have taken any notice whatsoever of those submissions. Please, please, please NHDC, deliver on your constitutional and moral responsibility, protect the Green Belt and provide your constituents with the leadership they deserve.

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.

We are residents in Weston and have studied the NHDC Local Housing Plan. We accept the need to build new houses, and strongly support the arguments put forward in the Weston Parish Council Local Plan submission.

We do not understand why the most obvious site for further development, west of Stevenage, has been ruled out in this Housing Plan. The expansion of East Stevenage further away from the A1 and Stevenage railway station will make commuting into London much more difficult. London commuters heading for Baldock will find Weston becoming increasingly impassable, not helped by the increase in parked cars and lorries on the through roads.

We would urge the Council to look closely at the WPC submission and amend the current plans.

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 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.

See attachment

See attached

See attachment