Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Hundreds of people were reassured by Levett, Hunter and Oliver Heald that they would be listened to when they came to a meeting of 300 people in Ashwell and at every stage we have been ignored. The village has put forward alternatives and have clearly stated why they object to the site. AS1 flies in the face of Ashwell's design statement, emerging Neighbourhood plan and recent housing survey. Ashwell has been very developed in the last few years and has already exceeded the quota of 69 houses for the period in question. Building in this village has been well over the national average for housebuilding.
Highways have turned down the site saying there is no sight line on Claybush Road. The site has been turned down my many official inspectors in the past for good reason. The housing development would will ruin the outline of the village and the landscape as seen from Bedfordshire. The houses will extend the ribbon far up the hillside and the houses will be seen from very entry into the village. There are far more suitable places to have housing and the village survey has clearly come out in favour of small developments which suit the needs of the elderly. This will free up bigger houses in the village for younger families. What is needed is low lying secure bungalows.
Pedestrian access: The developers have not sought to win permission to put a footpath across a private driveway on Ashwell Street. The track is not tarmacked; it has an uneven, pot-holed surface which is unsuitable for wide pedestrian, wheel chair or pram use. There is no room for separation between pedestrians and vehicles. The council have never maintained the road. It not a bye-way It is not used by the general public, it is used only by the owners of the houses on Ashwell Street. Furthermore the street cannot be marked because it is a rural, green, leafy track. There is no room for the provision of a passing/waiting area. Guideline 3 of Policy 57 of the Local Plan requires residential road and footpaths to be 'safe, convenient and easily maintained routes for people and traffic to move around'. Amongst other things, it requires that a road and footpath layout provides safe and convenient pedestrian routes between homes and local community facilities and creates safe routes for vehicular movement.
A recent large development was turned down by an inspector because parties agreed that it would not be possible for vehicles to pass on a single track section. The track on Ashwell Street, is narrower than the one referred to on Green Lane and it is even harder to navigate because of the blind turn. This would make it impossible for any vehicle to pass a pedestrian and consequently it would be necessary for vehicles to reverse in order to allow a person to pass.
The waste collection vehicles and large tankers providing oil to houses on our street would not be happy about this proposal. They have no turn around area so they have to reverse down the 2.9m-wide path! There are many regulations on how far the council workers can reverse.
They would have to negotiate a perpendicular turn onto Ashwell Street: it is a very narrow, blind corner (the hedge on either side is 8 foot high). The proposed path is used cars and there is no room for a person and car to go down the street at the same time. This part of Ashwell Street is only 290cm wide! Wheel chair access and access for the partially-sighted again is non-existent. Then they would have to turn left out of the Ashwell street junction where there is no sight line, go left down the lower part of Ashwell Street, then walk down the twitchells connecting Ashwell Street to Dixies Close. The twitchell is in 1.1 m wide and 40m long and has a gradient of 1:5. The visibility is impeded on this footpath as there is a bend roughly at mid-point. This prevents any pedestrian with a buggy or wheelchair from seeing other pedestrians and users coming in the opposite direction. The gradient is greater that the statutory regulations relating to wheelchairs which is 1 in 20.
It would be very dangerous also if children were to take a short cut and cross the corner at the top of Bear Lane. The proposal would no accord with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
The village was not consulted on a change of boundary. Inspectors in 1987 stressed that the view of the medieval church tower would be interrupted by building on the field. The School has reduced its pan to 30 and will return classes to a single year group. This is to balance its budget. The school is physically too small for a double entry. So there will be reduced school places next year.