Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

I support this partly because I am happy that it increases Ashwell's allocation to above the suggested 69, as we need to check the relentless rise in rents and house prices. However, planning conditions should ensure:
1. Paving of the pedestrian access to the junction with Ashwell St (private Rd) wide enough for a disabled buggy. It should be emphasised to residents that this is a better pedestrian route than Claybush Road.
2. Use low-pitched roofs to reduce the height of two-storey houses so as to reduces their prominence.
3 Specify at least 6 months access for archaeologists. (The site may be archaeologically important.) The archaeological site of Arbury Banks is only marginally relevant, as it is about 800m away
4. There should be a firm commitment that the sewage system is upgraded for that part of the village.

Comments on the Parish Council's response.
1. They make a big issue of having identified 3 alternative sites. There seem to have been no planning applications, which makes evaluation harder and creates some scepticism about whether they will actually happen . They claim the Partridge Hill site has good vehicular and pedestrian access, but Partridge Hill has no footpath and is narrower than Claybush Rd or Bear Lane. It is also on a slope similar to Bear Lane. The I D Products site seems reasonable. Development on the Land behind Dixies Meadow is likely to be controversial.
2. They claim there is no bus stop within 400m, but many of the houses are within 400m via the pedestrian access, and all are within 500m.
3. They say footpath provision is unsafe, mainly because there is no footpath on either the narrow section of Ashwell St, nor on part of Bear Lane. But many Ashwell streets have no footpath (e.g. Kingsland Way). Also, all of Bear Lane has a footpath, although part of it has shallow steps. To avoid the steps requires walking on a relatively short section from the top to about 20m above Dixies Close. (There is a footpath across the corner). Cars sometimes park in this section, particularly for a few minutes at school start and finish times, but most cars park further down the road where there is a footpath. Parking could be discourage on the part without a footpath. Children going to school from the Ashwell St area mostly use the rear school entrance, which avoids using Bear Lane.
4. They complain that AS1 is not within walking distance of the village centre (on the debatable grounds of safety), yet two of their preferred sites are considerably further away. (Partridge Hill and I D Products.)
5. The PC claim that Bear Lane has a 1:10 slope is is a considerable exaggeration. (And their claim in the "emerging Neighbourhood Plan" (6.1.5) on the uphill side of Ashwell St is steeper than 1:6 is a complete fantasy.)

I support this provided priority is given to:
1. Pedestrian and cycle access to Baldock station
2. Community facilities such as schools and medical.
3. A lot of Social and Council houses.

The suggested new road should reduce rat-running through Ashwell.