Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Search representations
Results for Mr & Mrs Edward & Elisabeth Strickland search
New searchObject
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
AS1 Land west of Claybush Road
Representation ID: 1132
Received: 28/11/2016
Respondent: Mr & Mrs Edward & Elisabeth Strickland
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The site is unsuitable in its location.
It is manifestly unpopular.
Ashwell has identified suitable alternatives within the existing village boundary.
The site is unsuitable for the following reasons:
* Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements for highway safety to protect pedestrians and other road users as defined in both National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and NHDC's own current and emerging planning policy for Highway Safety (Policy T1).
* Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements to protect valued landscapes. The site is within the North Baldock Chalk Uplands Character Area and development is restricted under National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and NHDC's own local planning policy, both current and emerging.
* Site AS1 fails to meet the requirements to protect the historic environment. The site is within the setting of the scheduled ancient monument Arbury Banks and is protected by NPPF and NHDC policy (SP13, para 4.151).
* NHDC has failed to consult on the proposals to extend the settlement boundary in locations other than AS1 (within which there would be a presumption in favour of development; Policy SP2) and has not responded adequately to previous representations.
NHDC has had over 130 objections to this site during the first consultation on this site last year. It had only one in support. This site was put forward for planning permission this year. Over 250 people objected this year. Only 3 people wrote in in support. It remains manifestly unpopular. The Council must refer the government inspector to these recent objections, as to claim that they are not relevant because they are in a different stage or process is manifestly unfair, unreasonable and unsound. The council have a duty to consider the democratic view of those affect by development.
This site has been put forward for development on numerous occasions and has always been rejected as it is unsuitable. It remains unsuitable. Ashwell has exceeded it's targets for development since the 2011 targets were put in place. It is offering alternative sites for consideration in the village which are suitable. The Council must not ignore these and must give weight to the will of the village to build appropriate housing in the right places in the village.
