Policy SP18: Site GA2 - Land off Mendip Way, Great Ashby

Weston is an area of natural beauty with Bean Valley running through it.

This is green belt land which doesn't meet the government requirements for building on and even the local MP has stated this.

By eroding the area between Weston and Stevenage you are altering the lives of people who want to live in a village and not in a town. There are already not enough resources for the existing settlements.

The roads are not designed to take additional traffic and with all schools in Stevenage oversubscribed where will all the children go to school?

The removal of green land will remove trees and plants which are required to keep the ecosphere in balance. The emissions caused by construction work will take years to reverse.

The loss of green belt land is of great importance to me

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.

Further for the sites GA1 and GA2 do not address the needs of residents of Great Ashby, who do not have a local GP surgery, and oversubscribed 2FE primary school which serves an area a 1/3 of the size of the development, no secondary school, and a widely acknowledged issue on the road network with the planning policies of the past. These two new sites are popular recreation areas for dog walkers, ramblers, with many walks crossing the sites, and extend into the Green Belt. At present Tileklin Wood and Brooches Wood provide a highly defensible Green Belt boundary to Great Ashby along the eastern boundary of the proposed GA2 site, the western and southern boundaries are not as defensible. Brooches Wood has a large range of biodiversity and again is an important recreation area and biodiverse - deer and badger join the abundance of flora and fauna, isolating this important area within the current Great Ashby and proposed GA2 will have a significant impact. Great Ashby needs these areas to remain as is, particularly important following recent proposals to remove a number of play areas within Great Ashby itself.

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

Local communities facilities are already stretched, roads are busy, there is very limited parking and Round Diamond school is always over-subscribed. Having been a governor at the school, I know that some years families who lived 300 yards or more away did not get in to their local school. So to suggest that by adding extra capacity to The Giles and The Leys is sufficient is crazy.
I've lived on the estate since 2000 and have seen huge changes in that time. The local roads, like Great Ashby Way are much busier and noiser. Not sure we can accommodate even more traffic.
Not to mention that this development will put added pressure on already full secondary schools.
And it will more loss of Green Belt land. I realise that development is needed but we need to be looking at more brownfield sites and stopping the urban sprawl. Keep the villages in Hertfordshire villages.
The proposal to make Mendip Way double yellow lined and not allow enough spaces for residents to park their own cars is insane - where are they supposed to go? Neighbouring roads already chock a block - there's noticeably more cars in this area than the older end of GA already due to narrower roads and less car parking space.

The National Framework states that Green Belt areas should only be developed as a last resort and in exceptional circumstances. I do not believe that the Local Plan has demonstrated this to be the case. There are other ways of providing the accommodation requirements of the area without destroying the areas around current towns and villages. I do not believe that enough consideration or time has been devoted to planning without the need to encroach on Green Belt areas.

The infrastructure that currently exists in this area is already under immense pressure. When Great Ashby was developed promises were made for a new school, doctors surgery etc. These have never come to fruituion, leaving the current infrastructure to cope. Further development would put undue strain and exacerbate an already intolerable situation.

The additional traffic caused by this development would also be very unwelcome on roads that are already very busy and get clogged upespecially during the rush hours. I believe an independent traffic assessment has been carried out showing major flaws in both the plan and the methodology used to come to its conclusions.

This plan, if implemented will be taking away green areas currently used by the community. This is, after all, why many people choose to live in these areas. Not to mention of course the destruction of habitat for local wildlife. They, unfortunately, don't get a say.

We moved to Great Ashby just over 2 years ago. We believe this plan should not be approved on the basis that the current infrastructure in Great Ashby cannot support the existing homes let alone a further 600! The road access around Mendip way and surrounding roads is already extremely poor due to the number of existing residences and their cars. There is virtally no on-road parking available due to the sheer numbers but more importantly and worryingly, should there be an incident requiring attendance of multiple emergency vehicles, one would have to wonder if they would be able to get through in time due to having to navigate the narrowing roads with vehicles parked on both sides/corners etc. This was recently highlighted as an area of concern for the emergency services by Herts Fire & Rescue. To suggest having road access to a further 600 homes off Mendip Way would lead to a veritable log jam of vehicles, particularly at busy times of the day. We would suggest that planners considering this application visit Mendip Way and surrounding roads when current residents are home (5.30 pm onwards) to see for themselves how much more difficult it would become for Great Ashby residents to traverse the roads they pay significant amount of taxes to both use and upkeep.

We would make further representation in relation to the strain on infrastructure such as drainage. In our short time residing here we have witnessed multiple occasions when residents have had to call out drain unblocking companies because the system cannot currently cope. To add the capacity from a further 600 homes would only serve to put even greater strain on a system already struggling to cope with the demand from households already in the area.

On the subject of green space, it would be a dire shame for such a beautiful and accessible (to all) location to end up as another building site. We are lucky in Stevenage to have access to spaces such as this but we must protect the space and the wildlife for current and future generations. When looking around Stevenage there are multiple brown sites that could be used to provide further homes. It is a fact that it is more affordable housing that is required rather than further executive homes. Generally homes in the countryside attract a larger premium than those in built up areas. However, if the purpose of the plan is to provide homes for all, then that premium will not be affordable to the vast majority that this plan is advised it will serve. As such greater consideration should be given to areas of Stevenage that have empty office buildings etc (i.e. places like the old Kodak site) where multiple homes could be built (even if it meant compulsory purchase for land that has been derelict for years) and would contribute to the regeneration of inner Stevenage rather than stripping its residents of further, accessible, green space that is so hard to come by today.

Also we would ask where the residents of these 600 houses will attend when they need the dentist, doctor etc? As an existing resident, we currently have to wait for 4-5 weeks to get a doctor's appointment; months to get a dentist appointment etc. Again the public services infrastructure will simply not be able to cope. This means that there will be further demand on services in A&E at Lister Hospital (because some people can't wait for a doctor's appointment etc). This leads to a reduction in care services available to all current Stevenage and surrounding area residents. We note the current plan references the provision of further education services but that would be some time off. In the meantime where are the children from these 600 homes supposed to go to School? If there are no places in the immediate catchment area this will in turn lead to more traffic on the roads around Stevenage - adding further burden to an already over-stretched infrastucture and costing the local economy thousands (or hundreds of thousands of pounds) in time lost to commuting delays.

We totally understand the need for further housing but it has to be the right type (affordable - to meet the majority of the demand); the infrastructure should be in place first i.e. appropriate road access, education services, other public sector services such as doctors and dental, and a survey should be undertaken of the drainage etc to see if it can cope. For example we had to wait 2 years before having a broadband speed of more than 2 Mbps - and yet we live just 1/2 hour by train from our country's capital city!

I strongly object to the further development of Great Ashby and the comments that I am making apply to all of the development within Great Ashby. The countryside around Great Ashby is a substantial benefit to the residents of Great Ashby, allowing people to experience the natural environment without having to travel to it. The area provides the perfect antidote to modern life for both adults and children, which is even more important as Stevenage as an area becomes busier and busier. I also object to the concreting over of productive farming land for the benefit of housing developers and, it would appear, to line the pockets of NHDC. The infrastructure for the area is inadequate both locally within Great Ashby and beyond. Great Ashby Way is not of suitable calibre to support further traffic, as it is a bus only has to stop at peak times and the traffic backs up (not helped by the ridiculous placement of yellow lines by Round Diamond school). This is the part of Great Ashby Way that will be impacted by traffic from the new development. Add to this the additional traffic from the GA1 development and the road will just not be able to cope, especially with the proximity of the school at that junction. Additionally the A1M is struggling to cope (as indeed are the major routes through Stevenage, especially when there are issues on the A1M), these developments (and the others planned) will worsen an already struggling road system. Public transport is inadequate to the area to alleviate the problem. Add to these issues the consequences on school places (inadequate even now) and doctors surgeries which were inadequate 20 years ago when I moved to the area and I see little sign of improvement. Indeed the surgery planned for Great Ashby never came to fruition and if GPs cannot be recruited to the area I fail to see how added to the population will help. I suppose we could always go to the vets.......Also the neighbourhood centre is now getting tight for parking and would be (again) inadequate for a further increase in the population. These plans decrease the amenity of the residents already here and I believe will not support an increased number of residents. I would like to know what experience you have of the area that makes you so certain that developing the area further is acceptable. My experience is personal as a resident of Great Ashby for the last 13 years and a resident of Stevenage for 20 years. I have witnessed the evolution of the area and the benefits and problems associated with it. Not least the feeling that the area is a constant building site. The existing residents deserve better and indeed a better service from NHDC; you might like to hold in your minds who pays your wages and pensions and consider yourselves in the service of those people. Our problem will one day become yours when the developers have gone and you have to adopt and service the area. Some play areas have still not been adopted in Great Ashby and the tardiness of the council to adopt new roads has been remiss. Finally I look out over the bridal way at Brooches Wood and from a personal point of view I love the peace and quiet, the dark and the wildlife that living here affords. I am not alone in that as I see many people walking their dogs, children enjoying the natural world and horses and riders passing by. I often walk in the land behind the wood and have done prior to moving here and I would like that to be preserved for future generations. I find it odd that governments and councils are constantly on our backs about environmental damage, global warming etc. whilst happily concreting over the areas that sustain us. There must be better areas that can be utilised for these developments if they are absolutely necessary and it would be good to know that NHDC values its existing residents without kow-towing to a government that seems to care little for the welfare of its electorate and the land.

I object to this development due to the current issues with traffic, parking etc. The plans are to use existing streets in Great Ashby for access to this, this will not work! Emergency services already struggle to navigate down Mendip Way and several other streets, the issue would be made much worse.
There is also too much traffic already going through Great Ashby at present.

There are not enough places in schools and GP surgeries to accommodate the extra demand that will be placed on them.

I hereby object to the development of the proposed site for the following reasons.
Firstly I do not agree with widening/expanding of the local minor roads (Mendip way, Hay bluff Drive or Bray Drive), My property is situated just off these roads and if they were redeveloped then I would be left living just off a main road and this is not acceptable. This would also cause major disruption whilst under construction and also reduce the currently used to capacity car parking spaces for the people on these roads. Secondly the increased housing would be overloading the existing services such as schooling, healthcare and play areas. Thirdly I object to building upon greenbelt land.

Reference: Local Plan Consultation 2011-31 North Herts District Council - Proposed development GA1 (Roundwood) and GA2 (SP18).
I write in connection with the above planning application. I have examined the plans and I know the site well. I moved into Weston a year ago & have settled into the area. We wish to strongly object to the proposed development of the above areas and find the Local Plan to be unacceptable.
Herein are our comments and objections relating to this planning application:
1. Unchecked Urban Sprawl
Weston is a small settlement within the Green Belt, where development proposals should be considered very carefully: infilling could ruin the character of the village & it's beautiful surrounding area, full of woodland and historical rural buildings, some Listed. Furthermore, Back Lane which runs to Weston, is a buffer from the increasing urban spread of Stevenage and Great Ashby. It is a tranquil, peaceful place and an estate development & school would overwhelm it. This Plan would simply allow the urban spread of Stevenage and Great Ashby to continue unchecked.
2. Protecting the Biodiversity of the area
There area is also rich with diverse animal habitats for endangered Red Kites, Bats and Barn Owls. These have a PROTECTED STATUS under Law (Directive 92/43/EEC/of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats of wild fauna and flora. With the increasing urban sprawl into the countryside, these protections are more important than ever. I do not feel the Plan has adequately considered the impact on these animals.
NHDC should be mindful of their duty to conserve the wildlife in their jurisdiction.
The areas of GA1 & GA2 are also an important green spaces. These are enjoyed by many people from the local area and beyond. The area is full of well-worn footpaths and bridleways, which cross sites GA1 and GA2. These are in constant use by horse riders, ramblers, locals and organised walks etc.
The protection of Weston's Green Belt visual, historic and archaeological qualities should be given considerable support. Paragraph 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.
3. The Number of Proposed Houses
The Local Plan is proposing the development of 7700 (or a lessor figure, which has been recently been announced) in this area. I am very concerned that this small community will not be able to sustain such a large increase in numbers and corresponding cars, pressure on poor local amenities. It is a very large number compared to the existing dwellings and will alter the character of the area irreversibly.
The number of houses, is far greater than the local demand for housing in both areas. This has already been tacitly agreed, by the recent announcement by NHDC -that fewer houses will be necessary. This shows the lack of planning and local sustainable interest with the Local Plan.
4. Lack of Infrastructure
Pressure for the development of these areas are considerable, mainly for housing Stevanage and Great Ashby commuters, but has been successfully resisted in the past where a common sense approach was taken.
The reasons for rejecting those schemes also included the inadequacy of the lanes apart from the main trunk roads to the area, which cannot accommodate even small increases in traffic, and because road widening would destroy ancient field boundaries.
The area is served by busy rural roads like Back Lane and Church Lane (GA1 and GA2). These roads are often single track in many locations and already heavily congested due to recent new developments already in the area.
There is no mention of improving access on these roads or Calder Way. This concern is evidenced by the A1 East of England interim report (June 2016). There is no viable plan in place in the Proposed Local Plan for this lack of access and poor infrastructure.
The traffic assessments prepared for the GA1 development did not take into account the flow of traffic at peak times, the reduction of traffic flow due to local farm vehicles or simply the hazards faced with increased traffic in such narrow roads, where it is often difficult to pass without one car reversing large distances. How will the traffic flow in these conditions?
Furthermore, with the Council's recent cancellation of the last bus service through this area, this could limit opportunities for the residents of the new development to travel by public transport. More cars, traffic and congestion in Weston and Gravely, are inevitable if this Proposal Local Plan goes ahead.
5. United Local Support Against the Plan
Weston Parish Council have strongly objected to the development of GA1 and GA2 and have found considerable support amongst the local residents: They have asserted that the proposed developments are particularly ill-considered: it is on a greenbelt land used by many villagers and tourists for recreation and walking dogs, and building here would both diminish the striking views. New developments are necessarily modern in design and this style design is out of keeping with the Weston village's and surrounding areas strong historic character. While design issues might be solved by conditions or revised proposals, these could not remedy the siting problem.
6. Lack of Infrastructure and burden on local Access roads
The proposed developments of GA1 and GA2 to the North East of Stevenage are poorly positioned in terms of infrastructure and local amenities. I think that a properly considered development plan is vital for the continued growth and prosperity of the local area, businesses and residents. I would support the building of a new Garden City or further development should be around brown field sites and surrounding areas. The green Belt is important and should be conserved.
7. Our Right to quite enjoyment of our home.
Both GA1 and GA2 have grossly underestimated the individual impact these large developments will have on our quiet enjoyment of our home. The GA1 and GA2 development would lead to a loss of privacy, loss of view and will certainly impact on the peaceful enjoyment of our home and garden.
The likely effect of the development on the residential amenity of neighbours has not been given thoughtful consideration.
The proposed developments will be visually overbearing, cluttered and out of scale with existing homes in the area. It is an inappropriate design for this part of the rural area. Such a large development would be totally out of keeping with the neighbouring properties, which are mainly smaller cottage style houses and small farm dwellings and miscellaneous existing developments in the vicinity. Furthermore, the inevitable loss of existing views from neighbouring properties would adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring owners.
As well as the increased noise, destruction of our views and quite enjoyment of our land, there is also the consideration of our safety. Parking would be a problem on our land. With the lack of turning opportunities on Back Lane, increased traffic will inevitably give rise to the dangerous situation with cars trying to turn on blind corners causing noise, pollution and dust at all times of the day and night. This additional concentration of traffic and roadside parking will cause traffic problems and create a safety hazard for other motorists.
We invite you to visit our home to verify that these objections are valid.
8. Impact on Tile Kiln Farm
Tile Kiln Farm and woods has significant historical significance and local importance. GA1 and GA2 would grossly affect my life and where I live. Tile Kiln Farm compromises of Listed Buildings and adjacent fields. I strongly believe that these two proposed developments would adversely affect the setting of the Listed Buildings.
Whilst living in a Listed Building, the Council rightly, put severe restrictions on any changes to the site. It is only fair that they do the same. I therefore strongly feel that NHDH have a duty to consider this impact.
9. Lack of Planning and Investigation into West of Stevenage site Location
I fully support another more suitable location on the West of Stevenage,
There is no need for this kind of open market housing in the GA1 and GA2. North Herts District has more than several years' supply of housing land to meet the requirements in an alternative area - West of Stevenage which is closer to transport links, recreational and shopping facilities. This site is well served by Junction 7 and 8 of the A1(M), a busy town centre, bus and rail links and retail park. It will also benefit from the newly constructed east-west A505 link to Luton and Cambridge.
This alternative would provide a suitable location which ensured that the Council fulfilled its obligation to provide affordable homes for local people.
Summary
Therefore, we ask that North Herts District Council refuse this Planning Application for GA1 and GA2 and encourage the planners to resubmit a more viable and sustainable Plan.
Should you require any additional information, clarification of any comments made, or would like to arrange a visit to our home; do not hesitate to contact us.
If this application is to be decided by Councillors, please take this as notice that I would like to speak at the meeting of the committee at which this application is expected to be decided. Please let us know as soon as possible the date of the meeting.

See attachment

In relation to the ongoing consultation on the Local Plan 2011-2031 Submission draft, I have several issues that I would like to have considered by the planning committee. My issues all relate to policy SP18 - Site GA2 and the development of approx 600 new homes off Mendip Way in Great Ashby.

The policy makes no mention of preserving the footpath that runs along the edge of the existing development from the Weston 033 bridle path running East to Brooches Wood (see attached map - path indicated in red). This may be because the footpath does not seem to be a registered right of way.

This is an important pathway that provides safe access between the bridle path and the woodland. The footpath is constantly used by many local residents including children, dog walkers, hikers, and runners. The path is also used as a bridleway for both police and recreational horseriders.

This footpath also provides a boundary between the existing Great Ashby development and the woodland to the other side which also requires preservation. The woodland is home to wildlife including owls, foxes and deer that would be at best displaced and most likely would die due to loss of their habitat. The boundary line of the proposed development site should be moved north to the edge of the existing tree line providing a safe corridor for animals moving between Brooches Wood and the woodlands surrounding Great Ashby District Park.

I trust the planning committee will consider these points carefully and make the appropriate adjustments to the policy.

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 have very recently been made aware of the proposal to develop within great Ashby and surrounding areas.
This raises many concerns for me. As I am sure you are aware, parking is a significant issue within the local area. Drive down mendip way after 5pm and you would struggle to park! Both sides of the road are fully occupied by stationary vehicles and residents have difficulty driving on and off of their property because the provision for parking is poor!
Further to this, our local primary school is over subscribed. I live a five min walk away, it is my closest school yet wouldn't qualify for a place. There is no local doctor or dentist in this area, residents are required to travel to other areas. The additional homes will strain our roads and local area. Green spaces in the local area are already being overlooked and maintenance is planned to stop on several of them.
This development seems to be a money making scheme with absolutely zero consideration for the people that live in the areas to be impacted. I'm truly disgusted.

I would like to add my objection to the proposed new development GA2 in the Great Ashby area.

Apart from the fact that it will deprive us of our beautiful countryside, I have been advised that no plans for new roads, schools or amenities have been submitted and I therefore feel it would be a greater stain on the already over subscribed schools and more pressure on the local doctors and hospital if this went ahead. Traffic and parking are already sensitive issues and adding 100's or possibly 1000's more cars to the area will be chaos on the existing roads.

I would like to express my opposition for the proposal of 600 houses onto Great Ashby - g2 plan I believe it is.

The primary schools are oversubscribed and the idea of extending the Leys would mean less outdoor play space for children.

By putting in more houses but not considering where those children might go to school, dentist or doctors is irresponsible.
Maybe if you insisted that the developers included a primary school that would help.

Also maybe if the developers had to make these new houses more environmentally friendly so that they didn't use too many resources. For example if they had to collect their grey water to use for flushing toilets, solar panels on the roof. Anything to make them better for the environment.
More houses and concrete would mean less land for rain water to soak into & drain away, increasing the risk of flooding.

Also if you also insisted that they make sure that each house has 2 off road parking spaces but don't include a garage in that calculation as no one really uses a garage to store a car.

So basically if you make the developers include a primary school, make houses more environmentally friendly, enough parking (not including a garage) then maybe people wouldn't be so against these houses.

We have recently moved into in Great Ashby and we are very dismayed to learn of the proposed development GA2. Please take this as our objections to both the proposed local plan and also the planned building at site GA2.
This particular area is full of outstanding beauty and tranquility and it would be a great pity to lose this. The area you are planning on building is home to a lot of wildlife and also trees that are over four hundred years old.. This ancient woodland provides a perfect habitat for wildlife and is a great asset to the local community to encourage walking and enjoying the outside world.
Furthermore the infrastructure i.e doctors, schools and parking would be totally inadequate as according to the proposed local plan no additional amenities are being built. As no new infrastructure is being built this would mean even longer waiting times for the doctors and all the roads would have increased congestion on them in peak times. Round Diamond school is up to its limit with numbers of children and with the additional housing and no extra schools would mean that children would have to travel further.
At the present moment this is a very quiet and safe area for families where children can play safely outside. If the plan goes through the area would get busier and traffic on all roads would increase. This coupled with the noise and pollution that this entails would remove the natural beauty of the area.
Please could you reconsider this proposal as I feel it is totally inapproirate for this area.

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.

I brought my house nearly two years ago as I wanted my young sons to grow up in a nice area with lots of beautiful countryside that they could enjoy. I have never written to a council before but I feel so strongly about the GA2 plans that I felt like I had to do something.

Great Ashby and its surrounding areas are lovely and should really be preserved as they are instead of trying to cram extra houses into an area which in my short time in the area already seems that the local services are struggling to cope. Even if new schools and roads are built to cope with the new influx of people you will be taking away the feeling of this nice small community and before long Great Ashby will turn into just another town.

Please please reconsider the GA2 plans for future generations who will not get to play in and enjoy the lovely north Hertfordshire countryside.

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.

I would like to OBJECT to the GA2 development in Great Ashby, Stevenage.

My objection is on the grounds that the roads chosen to gain access to this development are via existing roads in GA. These roads are already unable to cope with the traffic and parking without having a possible further 1000+ vehicles travelling down it every day. Emergency services currently already struggle to navigate their way down these streets.

I am also very unhappy that existing green belt land is being pushed further back, we will lose more open space. The wildlife living in the woods and surrounding areas will be forced away, or die off. The very reason we chose to move into this house/street is that there are open spaces and fields right next to us, it is quiet and a pleasant place to live. All this will be destroyed by a lack of foresight.

This development will cause further stress during and after the build, to us and other residents. It will lower our house prices, and cause further stress on our already over-subscribed schools and GP surgeries. The current infrastructure (and the one for the foreseeable future) absolutely cannot cope.
It currently takes nearly an hour to drive from here to the other end of Stevenage during busy hours, I cannot imagine how much worse this will become with this development.

I do hope you take my objections into consideration, I fully understand the need for housing etc, however further thought needs to be put into developing new villages/towns/garden cities, and not over-developing and adding on to towns already at bursting point.

As stated by Rt Hon G Clark MP, Minister for Planning; 'planning should be a collective enterprise'. 'It has tended to exclude people and communities rather than include them' yet, I feel with regards to GA2 proposed plan for 900 homes by NHDC - this seems to still be the case. NHDC have yet again not considered the residents of either North Stevenage or the residents of Great Ashby. I became aware of GA2 because I stumbled across a notification that had been put up at the further point from the beginning of any of the footpaths of the planned area during the first consultation whilst walking my dog. I have followed the process closely and regularly checked for the second consultation. I would like to point out that I have found no evidence this time round of any notices within the actual area, notification within Ashby itself, nor have any leaflets or information been made available to any residents via NHDC. NHDC has a page on their website asking for residents to have their say - but how is this possible, when they are not even notified local residents in the first instance? NPPF 17 states that planning should empower local people to shape their surroundings and I believe NHDC has failed to do this by simply ignoring people's responses during the first consultation. I believe with SP2 there is lack of support for the local plan: contrary to NPPF 150, NHDC's plan does not 'reflect the vision and aspirations of the local community' or NPPF 69 that 'local planning authorities should create a shared vision with communities of the residential environment and facilities they wish to see.'

The Rt Hon G Clark MP also states that planning should be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which we live our lives. I would actually question whether NHDC even care about the residents of North Hertfordshire and how their proposed plans are going to have an effect on residents who have lived here for much of their lives. I feel they haven't looked at other viable options, the figures for housing needs that NHDC have provided do not seem in line with projection figures for population for the area and these have been questioned in recent documentation by CPRE. It would also seem that they haven't even taken notice of the thousands of comments/objections they received during the first consultation, and this would most definitely seem the case with regards to GA2 which has actually increased in size encroaching on the many paths and woodlands that local residents use daily/weekly.

I feel that there are a number of other avenues that NHDC have failed to look into and a number of issues have been highlighted;
The housing target produced by NHDC is questionable leading to an unsound strategy, it would seem the proposed development West of Stevenage has not been taken into account with regards to housing needs being met within the area, and I can see no evidence (with regards to removing land from the Green Belt area) of NHDC considering a site by site basis with regards to meeting exceptional circumstances.
Policy SP5, paragraph 'a' I believe to be unsound and not consistent with the NPPF and unjustified.
Wording is based on a fundamental misinterpretation, outlined in paragraph 4.53 of the Plan and the Council's Green Belt Review 2016, of national Planning policy as set out in NPPF paragraphs 83 to 86. Paragraph 83 specifically requires exceptional circumstances to be shown to justify removal of land from the Green Belt by the redrawing of any individual Green Belt boundary. None of the three categories of site listed in SP5, paragraph 'a' satisfy this national policy requirement. This applies to the proposed strategic allocations and development around towns and villages in the Green Belt. Paragraph 4.53 of the Plan fails to meet the requirement as set out in NPPF paragraph 83 to set out exceptional circumstances for changing established Green Belt boundaries in the District. The text currently simply states that 'it is considered that the relevant circumstances do exist within North Hertfordshire to review boundaries and enable development to meet locally identified needs', but such circumstances are not identified either in the plan, and the only 'evidence' referred to is the Council's Green Belt Review 2016 (which does not address the issue of exceptional circumstances).

As noted through court cases with regards to Green Belt and development - if the council's approach were adopted then 'exceptional circumstances' will always be found if a housing need exists in general terms that cannot be met from non Green Belt land, but that would negate the basic protection given to Green Belt land in paragraph 14 of the NPPF and I believe this needs to be taken into account. I would also like to bring to your attention what the Minister of Planning stated in a letter to Members of Parliament on 7 June 2016
"the Government has put in place the strongest protections for the Green Belt. The Framework (the NPPF) makes it clear that inappropriate development may be allowed only where very special circumstances exist, and that Green Belt boundaries should be adjusted only in exceptional circumstances , through the Local Plan process and with the support of local people. We have been repeatedly clear that demand for housing alone will not change Green Belt boundaries."
I would like to make very clear that neither I, nor any of my family and a great many fellow residents do NOT support many of the proposed
plans including GA2 and I do believe that is a clear point in local authorities building on green belt - it has to be an exceptional circumstance
and have the support of the local community, which I believe GA2 does not have. Therefore I find the policy SP18 unsound, not consistent with
the NPPF and not justified and I would like to participate in further processes regarding this.


CPRE advised that there were enough brownfield sites within the UK to build 1.1 -1.4 million homes. I have asked NHDC if they have a register of brownfield sites within North Hertfordshire and I was advised no register or list existed. I am horrified to see that approximately 84% of the proposed development areas are on Green Belt and yet only a very small percentage is on identified brownfield sites. Surely in line with the NPPF (17 & 111); focus should be made on brownfield sites in the first instance and that it is a local authorities role to address this and identify possible sites. It would seem to me that as far as NHDC and developers are concerned - green belt development seems much more lucrative which is maybe why they haven't prioritised by locating and identifying further brown fields sites or old employment areas. With regards to ECT1/2 - given the scale of housing need identified by NHDC and the limited capacity of urban locations that the Council has been able to identify to meet that need, the plan should allow and encourage the use or redevelopment of suitably located employment sites for housing where this does not adversely affect the current owners and occupiers of such sites in line with the NPPF.

It has also been suggested that NHDC should identify a 5 year land supply and then work with other authorities to look at the possibility of a new garden settlement. This has been suggested by local MPs and District Councillors and is backed by a great many residents. This would have many benefits:
- a new infrastructure consisting of roads and access to nearby A roads/motorways, health services; doctors, dentists, primary and secondary schools, possibly a hospital or college
- this would create thousands of jobs within the country for local people
- this would not put extra pressure on currently failing towns such as Stevenage where many business and organisations have moved away or closed down, resulting in redundancies and many office buildings and part of Pin Green industrial estate being turned into housing
- this would not put extra pressure on health services and education already at full capacity and under strain
- this would not encroach on class A villages, losing their character
- it would not increase congestion on already congested roads, such as Great Ashby's Mendip Way which stands at gridlock during the rush hour
- it could be located away from ancient woodland or woodland that is home to a huge diversity of mammals and birds, such as that in the proposed GA2 planned development
- it would not remove more green belt which was put in place to stop urban sprawl, provide a habitat for wildlife and offer benefits, such as health benefits to urban and rural residents/communities - something that NHDC certainly have not taken into account with many of their proposed planning areas and in particular GA2 and that East of Luton, an area of outstanding beauty and one used by hundreds of local residents from within Luton (I do believe the Chilterns Conservation Board looking in to applying for AONB for this area).

With regards to housing needs and figures; I would also like to point out that the figure offered up by NHDC actually includes 63% of people migrating into the area - therefore it is false in that it is not entirely the needs of 'local people' and this should be investigated and reduced accordingly. I therefore find the figures for the local housing needs unjustified and should be reduced if talking about 'local need'. I do feel unfortunately that the government's Housing Bonus Scheme has had some influence with the level of development proposed instead of actually being needed!!!

I do believe that other proposed plans by Stevenage Borough Council should also be taken into consideration. The proposed plan for West of Stevenage would see a number of homes built and surely this should be considered as part of NHDC housing needs? This would surely remove the need for proposed planning areas; GA2, GA1 etc which would increase congestion considerably in the North of Stevenage. With the West - there is a possibility of access to Gunnel's Wood Road and the A1m where as this is not the case with regards to GA1/GA2. I do believe that Hertfordshire Highways already had concerns with regards to access for GA1, Mendip Way is often at gridlock. Should verges be removed as was suggested - this would cause considerable risks to residents as many homes are very close to the actual roads, with possibilities of children being knocked down, wheelchair users having to use the actual road on bin day and not to mention the issues of emergency vehicles having access. The proposal of GA2 would put even more pressure on to the Mendip Way area and this would surely be highly dangerous for residents.

I am aware that a number of local groups have commissioned a company PTB Transport Consultants Ltd to carry out a full transport report and this has highlighted a number of flaws in the report than NHDC had completed by another company. This has to be taken into account for the welfare of the residents and others journeying through Great Ashby and I would like this to be considered by NHDC and the Planning Inspector.

Stevenage is a failing town with many businesses and organisations closing down and moving away forcing redundancies and a decrease in jobs. After the closure of the QEII this has also seen lengthening waiting times for appointments and longer waiting times in A&E. It is difficult to get doctor's appointments and dentist appointments and secondary schools I believe are at full capacity. We simply cannot keep adding more and more homes on to the edge of Stevenage without the infrastructure to back it which is why we desperately need authorities to look at a new garden settlement.

GA2 is a beautiful area and is used by thousands of people every year. We regularly walk the many footpaths and see joggers, other dog walkers, people horse riding and family groups out for a stroll. The abundance of wildlife in this area is next to none. We have badgers, deer, foxes, bats, owls and birds of prey. Homes are important but not the only important thing. The countryside that NHDC want to develop as GA2 is of huge importance to thousands of local residents for relaxation and health benefits. We accepted Great Ashby but now we must make a stand against this. Please do not allow this to go through. How far do you want local people to travel to benefit from the open countryside? What do you propose to do with the local wildlife such as the badgers as this would have a huge impact on them and the biodiversity in the area which is also mentioned in the NPPF in the section re Nature and Conservation.

Houses are needed, but please identify old employment sites and brownfield sites first. Please look into building upwards and not outwards - there are a number of 4/6/8 storey apartment buildings in Ashby and Stevenage that are well designed and highly desirable. Please look at a 5 year plan for local needs and look towards a new garden settlement that will not have so many adverse affects on us who have lived here for many years and in some cases, their whole lives. There are other sites that do not include woodland, wildlife and do not have such social benefits as areas such as GA2 and that, East of Luton, north of the Grange in Letchworth. Sites such as Clothall Common in Baldock, the West of Stevenage and small areas within current town/village boundaries.

I do find many of the policies within the local plan, unsound, unjustified and not in line with the NPPF. I would like to participate in further examinations and processes particularly to do with GA2.

Thank you for your consideration and time in this matter.

As one of the badger co-ordinators for Stevenage and surrounding area and a member of HATBC, I would like to object to the proposed plan GA2 on behalf of HATBC and its Hertfordshire members and advise NHDC/planning inspector of the considerable concerns relating to this area and how they relate to the National Planning Policy Framework.

With regards to section 11 of the NPPF, Conserving and enhancing the natural environment;
109 The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
● minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government's commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures;
The GA2 area has actually been increased since the original proposed plan that was bought out for the first consultation. The area now spreads to the right, down towards the bridle path that runs along the bottom of Ryders HIll and Cleveland Way.
Throughout the newly incorporated area of now GA2 live an abundance of badgers which have lived in this area for decades. Main setts can be found in Nine Acre Wood, with satellite setts and outlying holes in Longdell Wood, Newberry Grove and the bank that runs along the edge of Cleveland Way. The fields to the right and below Nine Acre Wood have evidence of a huge presence and with well used runs, holes and latrines. Latrines have also been located In Longdell, Newberry Grove and in the field between Longdell and Brooches.
It is believed that the newly proposed GA2 plan contravenes 109 and would have a huge impact on the badgers living there as well as roe deer, muntjac deer, bats, owls and many other species.
We are aware that they do not require the same level of consideration in planning terms as NERC Act Priority Species but they are legally protected; therefore a full ecological survey would need to be carried out, investigations would need to be made in determining and distinguishing different family groups and the fact that this clan/s cover such an expansive area, a full plan would need to be devised on what is going to happen with these badgers. Obviously they cannot just be relocated anywhere due to territories of other family groups and we would therefore like to be kept in the loop with regards to any further discussions/plans relating to the badgers within GA2.

117 To minimise impacts on biodiversity and geodiversity, planning policies should:
● plan for biodiversity at a landscape-scale across local authority boundaries;
● identify and map components of the local ecological networks, including the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity, wildlife corridors and stepping stones that connect them and areas identified by local partnerships for habitat restoration or creation;
● promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species populations, linked to national and local targets, and identify suitable indicators for monitoring biodiversity in the plan;
It is with great concern that it has been noted that within the proposed plan 2016-2031, the wood at GA1 has been mentioned but there is no mention of any of the woodland within GA2 in that particular section.
It also has also given us cause for concern that the local badger group, did in fact object to GA2 during the first consultation and it would seem that NHDC have not even taken into account the biodiversity and varied mammal species including the badger. We would be very interested in NHDC plans with regards to wildlife corridors between Longdell, Newberry Grove, Nine Acre, Brooches Wood and the strip of woodland that runs alongside Cleveland Way.
We would like to know how NHDC are thinking of promoting the preservation, restoration and re-creation of these priority habitats and ecological networks.
Obviously the impact of people on the connective habitat and the surrounding woodlands would have serious impact on this species and many other species within these woodlands.
There are substantial hedgerows/banks connecting the woodland within the GA2 area which is an important connectivity feature, whose value may easily be eroded by the pressure of work and people from the development.

118 When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:
● if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;
The loss of the foraging area of a whole badger clan, which is the fields around Nine Acre Wood would be considered as significant harm and this impact should be avoided.

There are other areas which have been proposed by NHDC which would also have implications such as Ickleford and East of Luton; there are also badgers within the vicinity of NS1 but these are not within the immediate area. There are numerous other sites that NHDC have put forward which do not relate to the above points and would have no implications for badgers and other species such as; Clothall Common and Bygrave Common, Baldock, and smaller areas within town/village boundaries.

It is hoped that the above points and their relation to the NPPF will be taken into consideration. We believe that the proposed plan is not sound on the above points and we would like to participate and be kept advised with regards further processes/outcomes.

I am writing to object to your local proposed plan GA2 for a number of
reasons:

Core Planning Principles state that planning policies and decisions should 'encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (Brownfield land)' (see NPPF 17), provided that it is not of higher environmental value (see NPPF 111).

On focusing development around principle towns, it would seem that no attempt has been made to prioritize brownfield sites within these areas. Commentary in SP1(a) that 'new development making use of previously developed land where possible' and in SP8.11 (d) 'target the completion of 20% of new homes over the plan period on previously developed land' merely serves to highlight the inadequate efforts of NHDC to identify Brownfield sites and the strong reliance on Green Belt land.

NPPF 79. The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

As stated in 80. - it also assists in safe guarding the countryside from encroachment.

I feel that the proposal with regards to the green belt and the planning of this is not sound and unjustified. The NPPF states 83.
Local planning authorities with Green Belts in their area should establish Green Belt boundaries in their Local Plans which set the framework for Green Belt and settlement policy. Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional
circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan.
It would seem that NHDC have not prioritised in looking for old employment sites etc but have just put forward a substantial number of green belt areas for proposed planning. As stated in the NPPF - a want for housing is NOT considered 'exceptional circumstances' and the residents of North Hertfordshire would suffer a great loss by losing the countryside that NHDC have proposed for GA2. I would also like to point out, as stated by the Rt Hon G Clarke, Minister of Planning.

Planning must be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which we live our lives - I can honestly say that after the number of responses to the first consultation NHDC received, views and opinions of many residents and what they actually want has not been taken into consideration. Mr Clarke also states that, 'This should be a collective enterprise. Yet, in recent years, planning has tended to exclude, rather than to include, people and
communities.' I would like to point out that I have not seen any
literature regarding GA2 during this period, until I recently became aware of it from a newspaper article in the Comet which was by a local resident. Surely if residents of the NHDC are being given the chance to have their say, they should at least be made aware of it in the first place. I have since spoken with numerous people who also were not aware of GA2 until a local resident knocked on their doors.

The proposed area of GA2 is used by hundreds of people each week, particularly over the summer months. It is used by dog walkers, ramblers, bird watchers, families and couples to unwind and relax. It is of huge importance to many residents of Stevenage, Great Ashby and residents from Graveley, Weston, Halls Green and other areas. The area is one of huge diversity of many species of mammal and birds and a development of this kind would have a huge impact which is also against NPPF 109.

The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government's commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures.

This is further established with regards to NPPF 118.

When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles: if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;

This would have a huge impact on the wildlife in this area.

Another main concern is the pressure on infrastructure and access. I do believe that Hertfordshire Highways already had concerns regarding access to GA1; Mendip Way is at gridlock some mornings, having a further possible 1200 cars coming from GA2 out through this area would surely be conceived as dangerous. I am aware than local groups have commissioned a separate transport report which highlights numerous flaws in the report put forward by NHDC.

With regards to infrastructure; secondary schools are at capacity, many businesses have closed down within the area forcing redundancies, it is already difficult to obtain doctors/dentist appointments within Stevenage and waiting lists have increased a long with pressure on the ambulance service/A&E particularly since the QEII closed down.

I do believe that the proposed plan of GA2 is not sound and to build this development on green belt along side all the other issues would be unjustified in line with the NPPF and I therefore ask that NHDC seriously think about this proposal.

We would like to make my objections for the following reasons:

This site GA2 is on Green Belt Land and should be left as such. There are always brown sites available and more emphasis and attention should be put on using this land.

This green belt land is in very beautiful countryside and surrounded by ancient woodland and the associated wildlife which would be devastated by any development. Only in the last year we have seen a big colony of red kites comes into our area and we do not want to lose these. Also our bat colony is fantastic and would end up extinct.

This site abuts ancient woodland and it would destroy the character and valuable wildlife habitats of the area.

The access to this site has to be through Great Ashby, Stevenage, which does not serve the needs of North Herts.

The GA2 site is remote from all the retail and commercial centres of Stevenage and far from both road and rail facilities. The road going through Great Ashby is already totally congested at key times of the day. There is only one small shopping facility. It is deficient in terms of roads, sewerage and public facilities. Also how would the country road leading from Weston to Graveley be able to take any more traffic. It is already dangerous and not able to cope with large vehicles. It is a country road and not fit for any volume of traffic.

Another important note to mention is that our neighbours have been informed of the possibility of a large School being proposed on the field alongside Back Lane and opposite the driveway to Tile Kiln Farm & Barns. At no point in your report has the development been mentioned? Why is this?

We once again reiterate that we am strongly opposed to the plans and will do all we can to assist everyone in our community to fight this proposal.

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 am contacting you regarding the proposed GA2 development, I strongly oppose this as I feel it will have a detrimental affect on the surrounding roads which are already struggling with parking issues and the amount of through traffic on these narrow roads is a safety risk to children. Unfortunately due to what seems bad planning of our road sizes, this has made the access route to the development totally unacceptable, maybe in the future the planners might think ahead and none of this has to affect the local residents in a bad way.

Also I understand a childrens play area is subject to being removed in order to access to the proposed site which again is not fair to the kids, it just seems that people will be disrupted for the sake of the development.