Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Ashwell is a beautiful historical village surrounded by relatively unspoiled agricultural land. The people who live in and around the village chose to continue to live here because of the character of the village. However, there has been a constant trickle of small-medium housing developments permitted by NHDC over the past years which has pushed the central village and its services to bursting point.

For example, the high street (the only vehicular way through the village as as peripheral roads are one way / very narrow) is practically unusable at rush hour. One used to have the odd car parked on either side of the road and traffic would weave back and forth along the road using the gaps. Now there are long continuous blocks of parked cars the full length of the high street, and all it takes is for two lorries to meet each other and one can be stuck for 20-30 minutes, whilst traffic builds up, vehicles mount pavements etc.

It is unsustainable, and has been caused both by natural trends in car ownership but also by the council allowing the village density to increase through all the developments, converting farm buildings into more housing etc. If anyone is reviewing the feasibility of this development I invite them to drive the length of the high street at 8am and see if they still think it is advisable to proceed with another 30+ homes' worth of cars.

This argument also applies to all the key services in town, including:

* the school, where families who live in the village now have real fears as to whether their primary-school age children will end up having to go to schools elsewhere
* sewage, in that there have been several incidents of waste water backing up into properties
* broadband - the village was recently named by the BBC as having the "second-slowest broadband in the country, slower than Everest base-camp"

Every single additional house built in the village compounds these problems. NHDC is effectively trying to turn Ashwell village into Ashwell town. It is not able to cope with this, to the detriment of all the existing residents plus all those who will occupy the new development. It is for this reason I suggest the new development is not sound.

Furthermore I note that:

* Planning permission for developing site AS1 has been rejected three times for all these good reasons above and many others. Bringing it in via this plan is effectively trying to sneak it in via "the back door".

* 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.

* I do not believe development of site AS1 is legally compliant as it may breach existing residents' rights under the ECHR - articles 8 and article 1 of protocol 1, particularly when one considers that the village has fought this proposed development three times and had it rejected, for very good reasons, only for it to appear again now.

* I do not believe it complies with the Duty to Cooperate as it seems that the Ashwell Parish Council's views, which surely should be primary in any decision about whether to permit development in the village, seem to be ignored.