Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

I have reviewed the NHDC Local Plan Submission proposal and would like to lodge the following objection. I consider the proposed for development in Ashwell off Claybush Rd. (Site AS1 for 33 houses) to be ill-considered.

With the nearby development to the north of Baldock it can hardly be said that there is a local need. Ashwell has a good record of allowing development to meet the needs of the village and statistically have exceeded the national requirement. The proposed housing stock planned for this site hardly meet the needs, in type or location, to fulfill the needs of the varied population of the village.

Highway Safety. The main issue is that of safety, both pedestrian and traffic. The only practical vehicular access and egress onto the site is onto minor, but busy, roads of restricted width and with poor sight-line possibilities. Owing to mature high banks and already challenged width, both roads have no space to introduce footpaths. Equally, there is an issue of steep elevation change from the site towards the village centre for access by, particularly older pedestrians, to medical facilities and social amenities. A stepped pathway has been mooted but this will not allow for use by pedestrian with mobility problems or those with young children in buggies etc. . Hence, the requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the NHDC's own current and emerging planning policy for Highway Safety (Policy T1) are being ignored.

Heritage. Secondly, the Site AS1 fails to meet the requirement to protect the historic environment. The site lies within the setting of the scheduled ancient monument of Arbury Banks. This monument is already protected by both the NPPF and the NHDC Policy (SP 13, paragraph 4.151).

Settlement Boundary. Site AS1 would extend the village built-up area onto the high ground south of the escarpment, below which the village sits to the North today. As such it would not only overlook the existing village but would create an unnatural skyline when looking South. Additionally, the proposed development would obstruct the views North from adjacent fields, this being contrary to the government advice set out in the NPPF to conserve the natural environment which contributes to the local distinctiveness of the area.

Soundness of the plan. Lastly, the NHDC has failed to consult on the proposals to extend the settlement boundary in locations other than Site AS1. Presumably there would be favour in available sites that do not involve this extension: Policy SP 2 refers. However, this presumption seems to be ill-founded.

Ashwell has many things going for its population but, notwithstanding the need to further develop the infrastructure adequately to meet the needs of growth, Site AS 1 is not in the right place for further development. If this is allowed to go ahead it will be the thin end of the wedge to introduce a segregated 'upper and lower' village. The only entities to gain from development on site AS1 would be the land owner and the developer.