Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

As Ashwell has lost it's post office/newspaper shop and it's takeaway in the past two years this policy could have helped us save two outlets that were important for the community life of Ashwell - especially the post office.

I write to object to the NHDC local plan in respect of the choice of site AS1 in the parish of Ashwell on the grounds that itis not sound, justified, effective or consistent with national policy. I make the following points:

1 As part of the process of devising a local plan NHDC were required to consult the people of North Hertfordshire. This they did but, in the case of Ashwell, the response of the majority of those who responded has been ignored.

NHDC were offered a number of other sites, three of which were offered by the Ashwell Neighbourhood Plan Working Group. The owners of these sites, two of which are brownfield sites, were approached and asked if they would put them forward. They agreed. One of the sites failed many of the criteria which the Working Group had set but it was decided by the Group to put it in to the emerging Plan as it offered private housing for older people which had been identified as a serious lack in the parish in a housing survey carried out by the Group in 2015. The site is outside the village boundary and is larger than the maximum of ten units that was identified in the survey. However, it offered land that is close to the centre of the village, on flat land and close to the shop, surgery and pubs. It also has the advantage of a potential parking area for the village which is desperately needed.

NHDC was informed about these sites informally in December 2015 and the again more formally when they were sent a copy of the emerging Neighbourhood Plan. Although these three sites offer more units that that proposed in the Local Plan no action was taken by NHDC.

2 Policies 13.10 and 13.11 suggest that there is footpath access from the centre of the village to AS1. As this is up 19 steps it does not comply with the need for access by people in wheelchairs and those with prams and pushchairs.

3 The junction at Ashwell Street/Bear Lane is already complex and dangerous. As people walking from site AS1 to the village centre, down the 19 steps, will need to cross this junction it could be very dangerous for children going to Ashwell School which is on the other side of Bear Lane. As walking down Claybush Road would be very dangerous all, including small children, would have to cross this junction.

4 AS1 is a site that has had at least three planning application turn down at least one went to appeal (July 1987). This application was for four houses. The reason for denying planning permission was that the view from Claybush Hill of the tower of St Mary's Church would be interfered with thus contravening Section 11 of the NPPF. This also goes against NHDC's own Character Landscape Assessment (2011).

5 The NHDC Heritage Assessment for Ashwell completed in June 2016 recommends a small development in the north west corner of the site and for houses no higher than 11/2 stories. In other words they are going against their own advice.

6 NHDC is suggesting that 33 houses could be built on AS1. This goes against all their previous thinking (see also 5 above) and against the policy 6.i, building density should decrease from the centre of the village and policy 6.n, New housing development should be small-scale, unless it meets a specific, identified local need, of the Ashwell Village Design Statement which has been adopted as supplementary planning guidance by NHDC.

7 NHDC did not, according senior planner, do any assessment on the effect of sites in the Local Plan on the minor roads of the District. The development of the area to the north of Baldock could have a detrimental effect on Ashwell if people living there and working in Cambridge talk a route through Ashwell to the A509. As suggested above the village already has major traffic problems and does not need these added to.