Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

We moved to Great Ashby just over 2 years ago. We believe this plan should not be approved on the basis that the current infrastructure in Great Ashby cannot support the existing homes let alone a further 600! The road access around Mendip way and surrounding roads is already extremely poor due to the number of existing residences and their cars. There is virtally no on-road parking available due to the sheer numbers but more importantly and worryingly, should there be an incident requiring attendance of multiple emergency vehicles, one would have to wonder if they would be able to get through in time due to having to navigate the narrowing roads with vehicles parked on both sides/corners etc. This was recently highlighted as an area of concern for the emergency services by Herts Fire & Rescue. To suggest having road access to a further 600 homes off Mendip Way would lead to a veritable log jam of vehicles, particularly at busy times of the day. We would suggest that planners considering this application visit Mendip Way and surrounding roads when current residents are home (5.30 pm onwards) to see for themselves how much more difficult it would become for Great Ashby residents to traverse the roads they pay significant amount of taxes to both use and upkeep.

We would make further representation in relation to the strain on infrastructure such as drainage. In our short time residing here we have witnessed multiple occasions when residents have had to call out drain unblocking companies because the system cannot currently cope. To add the capacity from a further 600 homes would only serve to put even greater strain on a system already struggling to cope with the demand from households already in the area.

On the subject of green space, it would be a dire shame for such a beautiful and accessible (to all) location to end up as another building site. We are lucky in Stevenage to have access to spaces such as this but we must protect the space and the wildlife for current and future generations. When looking around Stevenage there are multiple brown sites that could be used to provide further homes. It is a fact that it is more affordable housing that is required rather than further executive homes. Generally homes in the countryside attract a larger premium than those in built up areas. However, if the purpose of the plan is to provide homes for all, then that premium will not be affordable to the vast majority that this plan is advised it will serve. As such greater consideration should be given to areas of Stevenage that have empty office buildings etc (i.e. places like the old Kodak site) where multiple homes could be built (even if it meant compulsory purchase for land that has been derelict for years) and would contribute to the regeneration of inner Stevenage rather than stripping its residents of further, accessible, green space that is so hard to come by today.

Also we would ask where the residents of these 600 houses will attend when they need the dentist, doctor etc? As an existing resident, we currently have to wait for 4-5 weeks to get a doctor's appointment; months to get a dentist appointment etc. Again the public services infrastructure will simply not be able to cope. This means that there will be further demand on services in A&E at Lister Hospital (because some people can't wait for a doctor's appointment etc). This leads to a reduction in care services available to all current Stevenage and surrounding area residents. We note the current plan references the provision of further education services but that would be some time off. In the meantime where are the children from these 600 homes supposed to go to School? If there are no places in the immediate catchment area this will in turn lead to more traffic on the roads around Stevenage - adding further burden to an already over-stretched infrastucture and costing the local economy thousands (or hundreds of thousands of pounds) in time lost to commuting delays.

We totally understand the need for further housing but it has to be the right type (affordable - to meet the majority of the demand); the infrastructure should be in place first i.e. appropriate road access, education services, other public sector services such as doctors and dental, and a survey should be undertaken of the drainage etc to see if it can cope. For example we had to wait 2 years before having a broadband speed of more than 2 Mbps - and yet we live just 1/2 hour by train from our country's capital city!