Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Search representations

Results for Mr Martin Vickerstaffe search

New search New search

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

AS1 Land west of Claybush Road

Representation ID: 3191

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Martin Vickerstaffe

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to AS1:
- Housing need assessment
- Site previously refused planning approval
- Parish Councils opinion
- Landscape Character
- Pedestrian facilities
- Visual impact
- Highway infrastructure, congestion and parking
- Affordable housing need
- Care home facilities
- Education capacity
- Not meeting community needs
- Scale of development

Full text:

I am objecting to this Planning Application for the following reasons:

This application is a complete rejection of both local democracy and the recently commissioned housing survey in Ashwell. Having rejected applications for many, many years the council now wants to grant permission to the developers. WHY? Having received a massive rejection of their proposals from the local parish council and the community of Ashwell, the NHDC does what. It changes the regulations surrounding the proposed development. Talk about the inmates running the asylum.
No attempt to accept the concerns about the loss of a visual aspect, or the lack of a footpath. This will lead to parents putting their children into the back of a "Chelsea Tractor" to make a journey into the village centre. Given the current shambolic situation with vehicle parking in the village, this can not make a bad situation any better. The fact that this development will not address the need for small units both as starter homes and for the elderly downsizing clearly does not matter to our elected councillors. School numbers, does not seem to matter that the school is a bursting point, after all it will not be HNDC councillors children receiving a poorer education due to over crowding.
Clearly the development does not address the needs of the community.
The real decision to be made here is;
a) Allow the development and thus allow the developer to maximises their profits whilst not full filling the needs of local community.
OR
b) rejected the plan and work with the parish council to develop and number of small scale sites, which satisfy the needs of the community.

Seems like a no brainier, so WHY are we yet again trying to foist a unsuitable development a community who know what its needs are.
The village is already at a point where large scale development of this size would further be a further erosion of the QUALITY of LIFE. There comes a point where a additional exploitation of a given situation can only result in the destruction of that situation, this case the village.
Adding another 100 plus individuals and some 50 or 60 more vehicles can not make a bad situation better. In response to those people supporting this development hoping it will result in affordable housing, all this in all means is that in reality that they will sold off to the highest bidder. Resulting in people from London arriving in the village and thus helping to create yet another commuter ghetto.

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.